Jump to content
The Education Forum

Why Jeremy Bojczuk is wrong about the Harvey & Lee theory and Lifton's body alteration theory.


Recommended Posts

The question remains: why would the masterminds behind the 'Harvey and Lee' false-defector scheme not have used the most obvious and practical means to achieve their goal?

No hypothetical doppelgangers were required. The masterminds had no need for the 'Harvey and Lee' theory's two virtually identical but unrelated Oswalds and two virtually identical but unrelated Marguerites. All the masterminds needed was one American with a knack for languages.

This is all they needed to do:

(a) Identify and recruit one American serviceman with a talent for languages.

(b) Allow that person to learn Russian to the required level, and perhaps provide some formal tuition if he needed it.

(c) Give him a cover story and point him in the direction of Moscow.

Why would they not have done this? Any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

42 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Allow that person to learn Russian to the required level, and perhaps provide some formal tuition if he needed it.

Lots of luck with that.   Russian is probably one of the hardest languages for an adult to learn.  A serviceman of age 19+ is well beyond the age where it's easy to learn another language which is anytime less than 9 years old.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Fite writes:

Quote

Lots of luck with that.   Russian is probably one of the hardest languages for an adult to learn.  A serviceman of age 19+ is well beyond the age where it's easy to learn another language which is anytime less than 9 years old.

Learning Russian to a reasonable but far from expert level may not be easy for you or me, but it's certainly within the reach of those lucky people who have a greater natural aptitude for languages than we do.

'Harvey and Lee' doctrine (or at least last week's version of it; it seems to change from time to time) was that the defector didn't need to be a native or expert speaker of Russian. He just needed to be able to understand spoken Russian: a much lower level of attainment. It's perfectly possible for a native English speaker with a talent for languages to learn Russian (or any other language that's related to English) to the level required by the theory in far less time than the long-term doppelganger scheme took.

According to the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, masterminds within the CIA were faced with the task of sending a defector to the Soviet Union at some point in the future so that he could eavesdrop on what was being said around him. This was back in the late 1940s or early 1950s, long before the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald defected.

According to the theory, the masterminds needed to set up a double-doppelganger scheme involving fake Oswalds and fake Marguerites, and then maintain it for a decade or so. But, as I've pointed out, they didn't need to do this. All they needed to do was identify one American serviceman with a talent for learning languages, and ensure that he reached a reasonable level in Russian, whether through self-study or tuition or a combination of both.

As I also pointed out, there were millions of American servicemen with the right background, and among those millions there must have been many thousands with a sufficient aptitude for learning languages. The masterminds had a straightforward, practical solution to their problem.

The 'Harvey and Lee' long-term double-doppelganger scheme was unnecessary. The masterminds would not have even considered the possibility of such a complicated and far-fetched scheme when there was a far easier, more efficient, and more obvious alternative.

The 'Harvey and Lee' believers seem to accept that their long-term doppelganger scheme would never have been implemented. So far, I've raised this question on at least two other threads beside this one (with more to come, no doubt), and they haven't been able to come up with an answer:

Why would the masterminds not have used the most obvious and efficient method to achieve their goal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As usually happens when he is talking about anything other than the mastoidectomy (which isn’t very often), Mr. Bojczuk waxes philosophical with a silly argument or two and then, when no one bothers to respond, declares victory for the 390th time against the Harvey and Lee Menace®.  He is clearly more interested in dwelling on what DIDN’T happen rather than discussing what the evidence shows DID happen.

Breathlessly announcing that there was more than one potential way to send an American spy who secretly understood the Russian language to the Soviet Union, and discovering no one cared enough about his “discovery” to respond, Mr. Bojczuk pretends he has vanquished all other analyses.  This is just another rhetorical trick.

It’s like saying O.J. Simpson couldn’t have been the murderer because he wouldn’t have chosen to wear those rare Bruno Magli shoes to the murder scene where the bloody shoe prints would help establish his guilt.  Logically, he wouldn’t have done that, and so he must be innocent!

This is why most detectives are more interested in evidence than in philosophy and psychology.  It is far more instructive to concentrate on what DID happen rather than what DIDN’T.  

The evidence shows that LHO gave little or no indication that he understood or was interested in understanding the Russian language before he was stationed at Santa Ana in late October, 1958.  Yet, just four months later, he got more questions right than wrong in an extensive Russian language test and soon had a lengthy conversation, in Russian, with Rosaleen Quinn.

Mr. Bojczuk and the Warren Commission desperately want you to believe that LHO acquired these Russian language skills in four months with no formal training whatsoever, just with the assistance of a Russian literature and an American-Russian dictionary.  What a crock!
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, you have a number of recurring tics that are an impediment to your mission.

5 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

As usually happens when he is talking about anything other than the mastoidectomy (which isn’t very often), Mr. Bojczuk waxes philosophical with a silly argument or two and then, when no one bothers to respond, declares victory for the 390th time against the Harvey and Lee Menace®. 

So, Jeremy DOESN’T mention the mastoid issue, of which - you make clear - you’ve grown weary, so you do bring it up?  What is wrong with you?

5 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

He is clearly more interested in dwelling on what DIDN’T happen rather than discussing what the evidence shows DID happen.

Since H&L has demonstrated neither what did or didn’t happen, you know this how?
Citation please.

5 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Breathlessly announcing that there was more than one potential way to send an American spy who secretly understood the Russian language to the Soviet Union, and discovering no one cared enough about his “discovery” to respond, Mr. Bojczuk pretends he has vanquished all other analyses.  This is just another rhetorical trick.

You should know.  It’s your trick, as you’ve just demonstrated by doing precisely the same thing of which you accuse Jeremy.  Your use of withering sarcasm would be more effective if you were actually any good at it.

5 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

It’s like saying O.J. Simpson couldn’t have been the murderer because he wouldn’t have chosen to wear those rare Bruno Magli shoes to the murder scene where the bloody shoe prints would help establish his guilt.  Logically, he wouldn’t have done that, and so he must be innocent!

How do you know that OJ didn’t have a Magli-shod doppelganger?  There’s as much evidence for that contention as there is for H&L.

5 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

This is why most detectives are more interested in evidence than in philosophy and psychology.  It is far more instructive to concentrate on what DID happen rather than what DIDN’T.

So now you’re an expert on what detectives do?  Citation for your contention, please.  Otherwise it’s just something else plucked from nether regions.  What was that you said about “rhetorical tricks”?

5 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The evidence shows that LHO gave little or no indication that he understood or was interested in understanding the Russian language before he was stationed at Santa Ana in late October, 1958.  Yet, just four months later, he got more questions right than wrong in an extensive Russian language test and soon had a lengthy conversation, in Russian, with Rosaleen Quinn.

Since you posit a lengthy, expensive and unnecessary doppelganger project concocted by CIA, can you not understand why - per your own central theory - that covert study of the Russian language was to remain covert?  Until the disaffected Marxist Marine loner was required?  That explanation takes a lot less effort than does H&L, per Occam.

Such covert language schooling could have begun at any point, and you’d have no way of knowing when with certainty. So how do you pinpoint that beginning?  Based upon what fellow Marines said?  Because Jeremy cited a number of fellow Marines who said that he was studying the language.

Moreover, you’d have no way of knowing - any more accurately than the rest of us - what LHO actually did while he was in sick bay, in the brig, or any of the other times that he was purportedly stationed somewhere, while other Marines claimed he wasn’t present.

5 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Bojczuk and the Warren Commission desperately want you to believe that LHO acquired these Russian language skills in four months with no formal training whatsoever, just with the assistance of a Russian literature and an American-Russian dictionary.  What a crock!

This underhanded tactic is getting very old.  If somebody disagrees with you, they’re on the same side as the Warren Commission???  You seem to ignore the obvious: it is overwhelmingly possible to abhor the Commission, and find H&L identically unpersuasive.  That’s your burden to bear.

Stop tarring as Commission defenders those who disagree with you.  It is cheap and beneath you.

Or so I once thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Questions for RCD:

Do you suppose we could agree on any of the following?

1.  As John A. showed more than two decades ago, the Magic Money Order® for “Oswald’s rifle” had no bank endorsements at all and was, therefore, not cashed.

2. J. Edgar Hoover failed to publicly declare the price paid for the Magic Rifle® until a week AFTER he determined the handwriting on the Magic Money Order was indeed LHO’s.

3.  The Social Security Administration failed to acknowledge ANY of LHO’s pre-Marine employment income and, in fact, failed to recognize his income from the U.S. Marines.

4.  The CIA, despite enormous pressure to do so, failed to produce a photograph of LHO—any LHO—from the pulse cameras and backup cameras focused on the entrances of the Cuban and Russian embassies/consulates in Mexico City in 1963?

5.  There is a remarkable amount of evidence that LHO both did and didn’t drive a car and both did and didn’t have a valid Texas drivers license.

6.  There is a remarkable amount of evidence that LHO left Dealey Plaza on a bus and then a taxi and, at almost the same moment, left Dealey Plaza in a Nash Rambler station wagon.

7. The shots that killed JFK probably came from his front, rather than his back.

8. Not one “investigation” sponsored by the USG cared about ANY of this.

I was just wondering if we could agree on ANY of this.

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

Do you suppose we could agree on any of the following?

I see you are back to your usual "hey, look over here!" tactics. No surprise. What do ANY of the claims you mention have to do with a long-term doppelganger theory, specifically the fatal flaws in said theory (Russian language proficiency, mastoidectomy scar) that Jeremy, RCD, Mark Stevens and others have repeatedly asked you to address?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Cohen,

If people like you tried half as hard to discredit the Warren Commission as you work to criticize H&L and me, we might get somewhere.  I deliberately picked a series of non-H&L points above, all critical of the Official Story®, to see if RCD would agree with them; to see if we had any common ground.  Clearly, you are more interested in picking a fight.

You and a couple of others here often say we don’t answer questions even when we do.  In this post, Sandy Larson pointed out that Jeremy Bojczuk refused to acknowledge his answer.  In this post, RCD complained I didn’t answer his comments although I posted answers I had made to him at least four different times in recent days.  Although I made a similar post twice, RCD never acknowledged it.

By all means, stick to your talking points.  Ignore the treachery of the U.S. government about the assassinations of the 1960s and just complain about me.  Brilliant, and so brave!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim:

As you know, I’ve tried wherever possible to give John Armstrong his due, while nevertheless being underwhelmed by his grand hypothesis.  

Some of your scattershot list of questions are quite interesting, while others are simply straw men.  

Example:

There is no “remarkable amount of evidence that LHO left Dealey Plaza on a bus and then a taxi.”  There are tell-tale signs of evidentiary fraud committed by DPD, FBI, SS, et al, in order to avoid investigating a Nash Rambler station wagon.  

Why?  

Such LHO confederates as a driver would require a conspiracy, so best to fit lone gunman LHO up using non-witnesses like Whaley, McWatters and Bledsoe.  

This kind of stuff was torn to shreds by astute minds shortly after the Report was released.  How is this question, just for an example, pertinent?  Are you suggesting three different Oswalds fled from the TSBD via three different methods?

But the single most important detail is that nothing on your list of questions requires, let alone demonstrates, the necessity of a doppelganger project, never mind one that had already been in the works for a decade.

That adult imposture of LHO is demonstrable does not require it to have begun in kindergarten.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert Charles-Dunne writes:

Quote

That adult imposture of LHO is demonstrable does not require it to have begun in kindergarten.

There's a remarkable number of things which can be explained plausibly without needing to use the 'Harvey and Lee' double-doppelganger theory:

(a) Oswald's impersonation in Mexico City and Dallas - no doppelgangers are required in order to explain this.

(b) The framing of Oswald for the assassination, before and after the event - no doppelgangers required.

(c) The assassination itself and the murder of Officer Tippit - no doppelgangers required.

(d) The assassination as a conspiracy - no doppelgangers required.

(e) Oswald's leaving the book depository after the assassination - no doppelgangers required.

(f) Oswald's connection with one or more intelligence agencies - no doppelgangers required.

(g) Oswald's false defection - no doppelgangers required.

(h) Oswald's knowledge of Russian - no doppelgangers required.

None of these things require the existence of a long-term double-doppelganger scheme. The theory adds nothing worthwhile to our understanding of the assassination.

On the plus side, it does give the more paranoia-inclined folks a nice big conspiracy to play with. Against this, it allows lone-nut enthusiasts to portray all critics of the lone-nut theory, even the non-paranoid ones, as a bunch of crackpots (e.g. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/2oswalds.htm) .

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Robert also points out, there's nothing miraculous about Oswald's acquisition of Russian. Oswald began poorly and gradually got better, like every non-native speaker, but he never stopped making mistakes. At least some of his knowledge was acquired by self-study, with the help of Russian newspapers and a Russian-English dictionary. There was ample opportunity for him to have received tuition while in the Marines.

And it is an uncontroversial fact that some people are naturally much better than others at learning languages. Just because people can pick up a foreign language more easily and quickly than Jim, doesn't mean that they didn't start from scratch, like Oswald.

It is undeniable that Oswald began learning Russian in his teens, and was not a native speaker. I mean, what sort of native speaker of Russian takes a test in his own language and does poorly in that test (official verdict: "his score was poor throughout": WC Hearings, vol.8, p.307 )?

Or sits around the barracks teaching himself his own language (Hearings, vol.8, pp.315-322 )?

Or can't read a newspaper in his own language without the help of a Russian-English dictionary (Hearings, vol.8, p.321 )?

Or makes frequent grammatical mistakes in his own language after spending two and a half years living among actual native speakers? His mistakes were obvious even to Ruth Paine, a non-native speaker whose own knowledge of Russian was not great (Hearings, vol.3, p.130 ).

Why does any of this cause Jim such a problem? As he told us last week, the 'Harvey and Lee' theory does not require Oswald to have been a native speaker of Russian. So why insist that he was? Has 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine changed in the last few days?

We've seen that it makes no difference whether Oswald was or was not a native speaker of Russian. Either way, the double-doppelganger scheme was unnecessary and would never have been implemented, because a far more practical, efficient and obvious method was available which did not require doppelgangers.

Could Jim please explain why he requires Oswald to have been a native speaker of Russian when 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine does not require this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Could Jim please explain why he requires Oswald to have been a native speaker of Russian when 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine does not require this?

As I already said in this post, we do not REQUIRE that LHO learned Russian as a child, but simply believe that is what happened through a process of elimination. Here is part of what I said:

In October 1959 one LHO returned to the U.S. and was assigned to MACS 9 in Santa Ana, where he suddenly demonstrated so much interest in and understanding of Russia and the Russian language that some of his fellow Marines called him “Oswaldovitch.”  He took a Russian language test and got more questions right than wrong.   Rosaleen Quinn, who was studying Russian in a Berlitz course, told the Warren Commission that “Oswald spoke Russian well.”  Erwin Donald Lewis said, in an affidavit: “It was a matter of common knowledge among squadron members that he could read, write, and speak Russian.”

So the question becomes, When did this LHO learn Russian?  Some people believe that Oswald was given a crash course in Russian while stationed at Atsugi and the Philippines.  One of the men who served with this Oswald (actually American-born LEE) for nearly a year was Zack Stout.  In 1995 John A. asked this Mr. Stout if Oswald spoke or studied Russian while in Japan. Zack answered, "Where do people come up with these stupid ideas. That's ridiculous. No, he never spoke Russian or had a Russian book or a Russian newspaper. If he had any of those things, all of us would have known about it."

Zack_S.jpg

Zack Stout

John also interviewed Richard Bullock, who worked with LEE Oswald in Japan.  Bullock said, "He was NOT the guy I saw in the picture on TV shot by Jack Ruby." He said that the LEE Oswald he knew wore glasses and “looks nothing like him. That's not the man I knew. The man I knew was 30-40 pounds heavier and 3-4 inches taller than the man accused of killing President Kennedy.”

Bullock.jpg

Richard Bullock

Forum member William Kelley also interviewed Mr. Bullock.  See his interview here.

In the months before being stationed in Japan, Classic Oswald® was stationed briefly at various locations in the U.S., and, according to the soldiers who lived and worked with him, was actually in those places.  There is no indication that he even had a chance to study the Russian language while moving about in these various assignments.

So, where did this 9th grade dropout learn Russian?  Through a process of elimination, we think it is most likely that he learned it as a child.  After he lived in Russia for two and a half years, Harvey Oswald returned to the U.S. with his Russian wife.  There, many people remarked about how good his Russian language skills were. De Mohrenschildt, in particular, noted his remarkable fluency, but also noted that he made grammatical errors, just as you would expect from someone who learned a language at an early age and then abandoned it for a decade or so.

Edited by Jim Hargrove
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Jim:

As you know, I’ve tried wherever possible to give John Armstrong his due, while nevertheless being underwhelmed by his grand hypothesis.  

Some of your scattershot list of questions are quite interesting, while others are simply straw men.  

Example:

There is no “remarkable amount of evidence that LHO left Dealey Plaza on a bus and then a taxi.”  There are tell-tale signs of evidentiary fraud committed by DPD, FBI, SS, et al, in order to avoid investigating a Nash Rambler station wagon.  

Why?  

Such LHO confederates as a driver would require a conspiracy, so best to fit lone gunman LHO up using non-witnesses like Whaley, McWatters and Bledsoe.  

This kind of stuff was torn to shreds by astute minds shortly after the Report was released.  How is this question, just for an example, pertinent?  Are you suggesting three different Oswalds fled from the TSBD via three different methods?

But the single most important detail is that nothing on your list of questions requires, let alone demonstrates, the necessity of a doppelganger project, never mind one that had already been in the works for a decade.

That adult imposture of LHO is demonstrable does not require it to have begun in kindergarten.

 

The evidence for the bus and taxi ride is far stronger than you suggest.  One Oswald apparently left Dealey Plaza in that Nash Rambler wagon, but the other was clearly instructed to take the Marsalis bus.  Why else would U.S. Army civilian employee Stuart Reed have taken two pictures of that bus on the same roll of film he used with remarkable prescience to take those pictures at the TSBD and the Texas Theater? Stuart Reed images:

Reed_Bus_Front.jpgReed_Bus_Back.jpgDealey_by_Reed.jpgStuart%20reed%201.jpgReed%20Release.jpg

On our website, John A. wrote up a series of points for critics of the bus and taxi ride to consider.  Sorry for the lengthy cut and paste, but this list is included near the bottom of a very long page on HarveyandLee.net.

III. NAYSAYERS

There are some people who believe the bus ride never happened, and that the entire story of the bus ride was fabricated. In order to reach their conclusions these people focus attention on witnesses whose memories are less than perfect, and then continuously criticize these people in an attempt to destroy their credibility. These people often misread witness statements and testimony. They criticize documents without thoroughly understanding what they are reading. Their cited "sources" are often not sources at all and, in some cases, are non-existent. They (naysayers) do this in an attempt to develop and promote their own preconceived ideas and theories. However, when their work is closely scrutinized, it becomes apparent that many of these naysayers have not done their homework. For example:

  • Naysayers criticize bus driver Cecil McWatters because he could not positively identify (HARVEY) Oswald as a passenger on his bus. Naysayers ignore McWatters' description of this one passenger and his clothing—a man who rode in the middle of the bus for only 4 minutes. These naysayers forget there were perhaps dozens of bus passengers on several of McWatters' bus runs on 11/22/63, yet they endlessly criticize him for not remembering details about this one passenger.

  • Naysayers criticize the testimony and memory of Milton Jones, who remembered Oswald as a passenger and remembered his light blue jacket and grey pants. Naysayers conveniently forget that Oswald sat behind Jones, and only saw Oswald for a few seconds when he boarded and got off McWatters' bus.

  • Naysayers criticize the testimony and memory of Oswald's former landlady Mary Bledsoe, who described Oswalds dark brown shirt, the hole in the sleeve, and the missing buttons very well. Naysayers believe that Oswald changed the shirt he wore to work at his rooming house before he went to the theater, relying on the reports of Kelley and Bookhout. Therefore, naysayers criticize Bledsoe because her description of the shirt matches the shirt Oswald was wearing at the theater when arrested.

  • Naysayers claim that Oswald changed his shirt at his rooming house, citing the reports of Kelley and Bookhout, who wrote that Oswald removed a reddish-colored, long-sleeved shirt with a button down collar and placed it in the lower drawer of his dresser. The problem with their reports is that Oswald did not own a reddish-colored, long-sleeved shirt with a button down collar. He did own one, and only one, reddish-brown shirt, but this shirt did not have a button down collar (CE 150) and this was the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested in the Texas Theater. All of Oswald shirts were listed in DPD inventory. In the Warren Volumes these shirts are photographed and identified as WC #150 & 151 & 152-all long sleeved, and not one shirt is reddish-colored, long-sleeved, with a button down collar. WC # 153 & 154 & 155 & 160 are all short sleeved shirts. Oswald could not have removed a reddish-colored, long-sleeved shirt with a button down collar, because he didn't own such a shirt. Oswald did remove one shirt and put it in his dresser drawer, as he told Capt. Fritz. This was his dirty white t-shirt, soiled around the collar.

  • Naysayers criticize Mary Bledsoe and say that she did not see Oswald on the bus, because she saw “only a glimpse of him.” Naysayers forget that Oswald rented one of 3 bedrooms in her home and she saw him on a daily basis only 5 weeks before the assassination. He talked on the telephone constantly and interrupted her naps. Mrs. Bledsoe remembered that Oswald often spoke in a foreign language on her telephone. She was very familiar with Oswald's face and physique. Mrs. Bledsoe only needed a “glimpse” of (HARVEY) Oswald to recognize him instantly.

  • Naysayers constantly criticize Bledsoe and Jones and Whaley for their less than perfect memories. But Oswald was only in their presence for a mere 4-6 minutes. Naysayers conveniently forget that Bledsoe and Jones and Whaley all remembered that Oswald wore light colored grey pants on the bus and taxi. Oswald told Capt. Fritz that he had changed his dirty trousers (light colored grey pants) in his room. When arrested, Oswald was wearing very dark pants. His dirty light colored grey pants were later found in his room by police. How could Bledsoe and Jones and Whaley have known Oswald was wearing light grey pants on the bus/taxi unless they had personally seen him?

  • Naysayers claim that McWatters never gave Oswald a bus transfer. If McWatters never gave bus transfer #004459 to Oswald, then perhaps naysayers would care to explain why Dallas Police called the Dallas Transit Division Superintendent. Explain how Mr. F.F. Yates was able to immediately identify McWatters as the driver who issued the bus transfer. Do the naysayers expect us to believe that Dallas Transit supervisors were coerced into going along with a fabricated story that the bus ride never happened?

  • Naysayers ignore the fact that transfer #004459 came from McWatters' transfer book. They ignore McWatters' testimony that he remembered giving a transfer to Oswald and a transfer to a blond haired lady when both were getting off the bus. Naysayers ignore Mary Bledsoe's testimony that she spoke briefly with the blond lady when McWatters gave her a transfer. How would Oswald know about a blond-haired lady on McWatters bus unless he had ridden on that bus?

  • Naysayers claim the bus transfer at the National Archives does not have a crease in the middle, so it was never folded and put in Oswald's pocket. Naysayers ignore the fact that National Archivist Steve Hamilton confirmed that the bus transfer has a crease in the middle, indicating that it had at one time been folded.

  • Naysayers question the number of transfers given out by McWatters on 11/22/63. They know the first transfer McWatters issued was #004452, and they know the police found transfer #004459 in Oswald's shirt pocket. They claim, correctly, that McWatters gave out 8 transfers (#004452 to #004459). But they then claim that because McWatters told the WC that he gave out only two transfers, that 6 transfers were “missing.” Once again, these naysayers are simply misreading testimony. McWatters told the WC, “Yes, sir; I gave him one [bus transfer] about two blocks from where he got on [at Griffin]...that is the transfer because it had my punch mark on it....I gave only two transfers going through town on that trip [going through town on that trip!] and that was at the one stop of where I gave the lady and the gentlemen that got off the bus, I issued two transfers....But that was the only two transfers were issued [on that ONE trip thru town]. Very simple. McWatters issued six transfers prior to picking up Oswald and the blond lady (prior to 12:40 PM). He then issued a transfer to the blond lady and a transfer to Oswald when they got off the bus (circa 12:44 PM).

  • Oswald told Capt. Fritz and his interrogators about a blond woman asking William Whaley to call her a taxi, just after Oswald got into Whaley's taxi. William Whaley told the WC the same story--that just after Oswald got into the front seat of his taxi, a blond lady asked him to call a taxi for her. How is it possible that Oswald's and Whaley's stories match perfectly, unless the taxi ride acutally happened and was remembered by both Oswald and Whaley?

  • Naysayers conveniently forget that Oswald's reference to a blond-haired lady, which he told to Capt. Fritz and numerous law enforcement officers during interrogations, was also remembered by Cecil McWatters, Mary Bledsoe, and Roy Milton Jones.

  • Naysayers criticize William Whaley for saying that Oswald had a silverlike strip on his shirt. Naysayers ignore and intentionally overlook that Whaley also said Oswald was wearing a brown long-sleeve shirt and a t-shirt with a soiled collar.

  • Naysayers criticize William Whaley because he said Oswald's bracelet was a “stretchband,” when it looks like a “chain link” bracelet. But naysayers, once again, should do their homework. Oswald's bracelet is listed on a DPD property form, found in Box 1, folder 8, item 1 at the Dallas Archives. It is identified as "One I.D. stretch band with 'Lee' inscribed.” Naysayers also fail so explain how Whaley could have known that Oswald was wearing any kind of silver-colored bracelet, unless he saw the bracelet himself on Oswald's left arm while riding in his taxi.

  • Naysayers criticize William Whaley when he said that he drove Oswald to Neches and Beckley, because this address is non-existent. Naysayers conveniently fail to remember that Oswald instructed Whaley to drive to the 500 block of N. Beckley. As Whaley was driving south on N. Beckley, Oswald said “this will do.” Whaley then stopped randomly in the street, at an unknown address, and Oswald got out of his taxi. Whaley wrote “500 N. Beckley” in his manifest because that is what he remembered Oswald told him when he first got into his taxi.

  • Naysayers criticize William Whaley because he wrote down the time of Oswald's taxi ride incorrectly in his manifest. Naysayers conveniently forget that Whaley explained to the WC that he always wrote the times of his taxi rides in 15-minute intervals. And said that he often wrote two, three, or four of these entries in his manifest at the same time, long after the taxi rides. Whaley said that when he got back to the Union Terminal he made an entry of the trip (to N Beckley) on his manifest for the day.

  • Naysayers criticize taxi driver William Whaley for naming the number 3 man in the police lineup as Oswald, when he was identified by the police as the number 2 man. Naysayers ignore the explanation that Whaley gave to the WC. Whaley simply said that LHO, walking from left to the right, was the 3rd man brought out for the lineup. From left to right, according to the police, Oswald was the #2 man.

  • Naysayers criticize and criticize these witnesses over the smallest of details, in an attempt to “prove” that the bus and taxi ride never happened. This is the extent of their “research.”

  • Naysayers ignore the fact that Capt. Fritz and many law enforcement officers heard Oswald say that he rode a bus, got a bus transfer, got into a taxi, offered to let a blond-haired lady have his taxi, and paid an 85 cent fare. The facts are that Mary Bledsoe and Roy Milton Jones testified that Oswald was on McWatters bus, transfer #004459 was found in Oswald's shirt pocket, William Whaley testified that Oswald rode in his taxi, that Oswald offered to let a blond-haired lady have his taxi, and that Oswald paid 95 cents in taxi fare. Witness testimony and evidence match pretty well with what Oswald told his interrogators.

  • Naysayers criticize, criticize, and criticize these witnesses for not having perfect memories. Yet these naysayers never produce a single document or a single witness by which to prove the taxi and bus ride never happened. Nor can they offer an ounce of PROOF as to what they think COULD HAVE happened—only speculation, fantasies, and daydreams.

 

To these naysayers, I would ask them to simply identify the person or persons who came up with the idea to fabricate a story in which the bus and taxi rider never happened. I would ask them to name the person or persons who had the knowledge, presence, and ability to fabricate such a hoax within hours of Oswald's arrest..

I would remind naysayers that Oswald himself said during his first and second interrogations that he rode a bus, long before the police knew about Cecil McWatters. And Oswald made these statements in the presence of Capt. Fritz, James Hosty, Thomas Kelley, James Bookhout, and numerous officers. These people took notes, made reports, and/or gave WC testimony about statements made by Oswald. These naysayers would have us believe that a person or persons unknown convinced all of these people (SS agents Kelley, Nully and Forrest: FBI agents Hosty, Grant, Odum and Bookout; US Marshall Nash; Capt Fritz, DPD officers Sims, Boyd, Turner, Hall, Dhority, Owens, Leavelle, and Senkel, taxi driver Whaley, bus driver McWatters, bus passengers Bledsoe and Jones, bus and taxi officials) to lie and go along with a fabricated story that the bus and taxi ride never happened. But no matter how much evidence researchers produce to prove that Oswald rode on a bus and in a taxi on 11/22/63, we can be sure that irresponsible naysayers can and will find the most trivial, superficial, and inconsequential reasons to continue their criticism.

 

Rather than nit-pick the statements and memories of witnesses who saw “Lee Harvey Oswald” riding in either the station wagon, bus, or taxi, naysayers should study the overwhelming amount of evidence that shows there were two “Lee Harvey Oswalds” who looked very similar. At 12:40 PM LEE Oswald got into a Nash Rambler station wagon in front of the TSBD, while HARVEY Oswald was getting into McWatters' city bus at Elm and Griffin. An hour and a half later HARVEY Oswald was arrested, handcuffed, and sitting in a room at Dallas Police headquarters. When Capt Fritz pointed to Roger Craig and said to Oswald, “This man saw you leave....what about the car?” Oswald replied, “that station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine.....” HARVEY Oswald dared not say any more, but his statement about Mrs. Paine and a station wagon shows that he knew a lot more than what he told his interrogators .

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is truly rich.

Having spent decades accusing DPD, FBI, SS and others of having forged, suppressed and altered evidence in this case (with ample cause), you now claim we can believe the self-same parties, because it suits you.

Having repeatedly accused people who disagree with you of siding with the Warren Commission, you now cite as expert witness testimony some of the least credible people and regurgitate uncritically what was said to, and presented by, the Warren Commission.  Because it suits you.

Like you, I have wondered for decades how Stuart Reed was in a position to take the photos he did.  Unlike you, I don’t speculate that because Reed took two photos of a bus, it must have contained an Oswald.  

Anyone giving a fair reading to testimony from Bledsoe, McWatters and Jones comes away wondering how they can be describing the same person.  (They weren’t.)

Perhaps you'd care to explain how it came to be that a person wishing to go westbound would walk eastbound to do so.  Knowing there was a bottleneck in traffic because he'd just walked through it.  Perhaps you could explain why he allegedly caught the bus directly in front of the Rio Grande building (which housed the local military intelligence offices.)

Unlike you, I don’t believe the DPD was so slipshod as to book Oswald as a prisoner, yet fail for several hours to remove from his person some bullets and a bus transfer.  

On the contrary, it is far more likely those things were taken from Oswald upon being brought to DPD HQ.  Giving the DPD an almost immediate clue as to which bus Oswald was alleged to have taken.  (Given that it was in the pocket of someone who'd been wrestled to submission by a half dozen cops, it sure was in pristine condition.)  

But how and why would Oswald have possession of a bus transfer, if he wasn’t on the bus?  

Perhaps for the same reason he carried someone else’s old pay-stub from American Bakeries, two  halves of 2 different dollar bills, and a boxtop.  

He never worked for American Bakeries, had no conceivable innocent use for two halves of 2 different dollar bills, and carried a boxtop for reasons that likewise defy easy resolution.    

I will leave open room for an alternate explanation: unable to accept any accomplices, per Roger Craig and corroborating witnesses,(that LHO was driven out of the plaza in a Nash Rambler station wagon) DPD procured a bus transfer and claimed it was taken from Oswald.  

Just hours later.  Because that took a few hours to do.  (And explains its pristine condition.)

Why?  

Because each and every institution responsible for preventing the assassination would look inept, or worse, should it prove true that Craig witnessed Oswald being driven away by a co-conspirator.  Guys like Craig were sidelined, for obvious reasons.  No one needed Katzenbach to spell it out for them.  Train, boat, plane, taxi, bus, hovercraft.... just not a Nash Rambler driven by a confederate.

I’m particularly bemused to see you accept Capt. Fritz’s word on anything.  He was, after all, the same chap who said Oswald had confessed to retrieving and carrying the gun (for no apparent reason, it’s just what guys do) that allegedly killed Tippit.  

Is it your position that Oswald made such an admission to Fritz?  I’d appreciate an answer to that question.

(In citing both Fritz and Craig - whose own stories conflicted severely - you pick what you wish from each and disregard the rest.)

I ask only because I’ve noticed a recurring phenomenon among the H&L camp.  You don’t always agree with John, and DJ doesn’t always agree with you, and Doc doesn’t always agree with DJ and Sandy doesn’t always agree with Doc.  

With so many like-minded people opting to freelance hither and yon, what is one to think?  If there isn’t agreement among yourselves, why do you expect it from those who haven’t bought into the theory?

And after several decades, why do you think so few people have embraced the hypothesis?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2020 at 6:17 PM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

This is truly rich.

Having spent decades accusing DPD, FBI, SS and others of having forged, suppressed and altered evidence in this case (with ample cause), you now claim we can believe the self-same parties, because it suits you.

Having repeatedly accused people who disagree with you of siding with the Warren Commission, you now cite as expert witness testimony some of the least credible people and regurgitate uncritically what was said to, and presented by, the Warren Commission.  Because it suits you.

What I do is present the evidence John A. has found for two Oswalds, evidence which flows through this case like a river.  I said previously that there is considerable evidence for the bus and taxi ride, as well as for the Nash Rambler getaway, and there is—for both. You say the bus and taxi evidence is fraudulent, and, we can both agree, the Nash Rambler evidence should have been investigated.

Quote

Like you, I have wondered for decades how Stuart Reed was in a position to take the photos he did.  Unlike you, I don’t speculate that because Reed took two photos of a bus, it must have contained an Oswald.

If you are aware of anything in those two photos--other than that bus--that is relevant to this case, please let me know. Why else would Reed have taken those shots?

Below are WC photos of McWatters’ bus.  Compare them to the images Reed took (in my post above).
Photo_wcd488_0023-1.jpgPhoto_wcd488_0025.jpg

Quote

Anyone giving a fair reading to testimony from Bledsoe, McWatters and Jones comes away wondering how they can be describing the same person.  (They weren’t.)

You wouldn’t expect a bus driver in those crowded circumstances to remember much about one passenger, and McWatters clearly didn’t.  Oswald sat behind Jones, and it is amazing that Jones remembered anything at all about him.  I think the best witness was Bledsoe, but I’m aware of the theories about her complicity. Notably, McWatters, Bledsoe, and Jones ALL remembered the blond lady getting on the bus at the same time as Oswald and getting off the bus at the same time as Oswald. This was not part of the WC narrative, but all three witnesses remembered it.  Both the woman and Oswald, apparently, were given bus transfers by McWatters.

Bus and taxi critics always concentrate on the bus ride, but they often fail to even address William Whaley’s description of Oswald in his taxi.  You would expect a taxi driver to remember more about his rider, and Whaley clearly did.  Note how well he described Oswald’s bracelet.
Bracelet%20on%20Oswald.gif

Quote

Perhaps you'd care to explain how it came to be that a person wishing to go westbound would walk eastbound to do so.  Knowing there was a bottleneck in traffic because he'd just walked through it.  Perhaps you could explain why he allegedly caught the bus directly in front of the Rio Grande building (which housed the local military intelligence offices.)

Because he was instructed to get on that bus, probably by Bill Shelley, who we believe was the last person to see him—by plan--in the TSBD.

Quote

Unlike you, I don’t believe the DPD was so slipshod as to book Oswald as a prisoner, yet fail for several hours to remove from his person some bullets and a bus transfer.

Agreed.

Quote

On the contrary, it is far more likely those things were taken from Oswald upon being brought to DPD HQ.  Giving the DPD an almost immediate clue as to which bus Oswald was alleged to have taken.  (Given that it was in the pocket of someone who'd been wrestled to submission by a half dozen cops, it sure was in pristine condition.)

Yeah, but it had been folded, at least. You can see the folds most easily on the back side.
bus_transfer_back.jpg

Quote

But how and why would Oswald have possession of a bus transfer, if he wasn’t on the bus?  

Perhaps for the same reason he carried someone else’s old pay-stub from American Bakeries, two  halves of 2 different dollar bills, and a boxtop.  

He never worked for American Bakeries, had no conceivable innocent use for two halves of 2 different dollar bills, and carried a boxtop for reasons that likewise defy easy resolution.    

I will leave open room for an alternate explanation: unable to accept any accomplices, per Roger Craig and corroborating witnesses,(that LHO was driven out of the plaza in a Nash Rambler station wagon) DPD procured a bus transfer and claimed it was taken from Oswald.  

Just hours later.  Because that took a few hours to do.  (And explains its pristine condition.)

Why?  

Because each and every institution responsible for preventing the assassination would look inept, or worse, should it prove true that Craig witnessed Oswald being driven away by a co-conspirator.  Guys like Craig were sidelined, for obvious reasons.  No one needed Katzenbach to spell it out for them.  Train, boat, plane, taxi, bus, hovercraft.... just not a Nash Rambler driven by a confederate.

Yeah, especially if it was for the Other Oswald, you know, the one you needed to hide.

Quote

I’m particularly bemused to see you accept Capt. Fritz’s word on anything.  He was, after all, the same chap who said Oswald had confessed to retrieving and carrying the gun (for no apparent reason, it’s just what guys do) that allegedly killed Tippit.

Yes, this is a pivotal issue.  Do you think Hill, McDonald, Carroll, and undoubtedly others I’m forgetting all lied about Oswald’s .38 in the Texas Theater?   

Quote

Is it your position that Oswald made such an admission to Fritz?  I’d appreciate an answer to that question.

It makes sense IF Oswald carried a .38 into that theater.  Are you sure he didn’t?

I’ve wondered for years about Hill’s testimony when he said he turned around in the squad car and asked Oswald if the pistol was his.  According to Hill, Oswald replied, “No, it is the suspect’s.”

Sheesh!  That is such a weird answer I can’t believe it was planted.  Who could the suspect have been?

Quote

(In citing both Fritz and Craig - whose own stories conflicted severely - you pick what you wish from each and disregard the rest.)

I ask only because I’ve noticed a recurring phenomenon among the H&L camp.  You don’t always agree with John, and DJ doesn’t always agree with you, and Doc doesn’t always agree with DJ and Sandy doesn’t always agree with Doc.  

With so many like-minded people opting to freelance hither and yon, what is one to think?  If there isn’t agreement among yourselves, why do you expect it from those who haven’t bought into the theory?

Why should we all agree on everything?  We’re not communists.  I do think we all agree that John A. has made some breakthrough research on LHO and that, at the very least, there are serious problems with the Official Biography® of “Lee Harvey Oswald.”

Quote

And after several decades, why do you think so few people have embraced the hypothesis?

You H&L critics keep saying that. Do you EVER update your talking points, or do you endlessly just keep on repeating the same old critiques? The evidence clearly disproves your claim.  In recent years, three books have been released based on Harvey and Lee, and I can tell you that a fourth is well in the works and the author has been putting out serious queries for months.  Hundreds of thousands of people have watched feature-film length YouTube videos based entirely on John’s interviews with Len Osanic on Black Ops Radio.  A number of the longest threads ever posted on the Ed Forum are about Harvey and Lee.

A few months ago I wrote: Just two feature-film length video talks by John Armstrong posted on YouTube by “MrChrillemannen” have a total of more than 615,000 views, up about a hundred thousand since I last checked three months ago. The videos are:

Captain Westbrook, officer Tippit and Oswald's double

and

Who impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald?

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

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."

Edited by Jim Hargrove
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...