Jonathan Cohen

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Wilcott knew only that Oswald was a part of the project, and that he got paid for it. What he knew does not contradict any of those things you say it does.

Wilcott absolutely did not know anything at all about a doppelganger project and never said a word about such a thing. Once again you are conflating this imaginary government plot with Wilcott's (unsupported) claim that Oswald was in some way utilized by the CIA.

43 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

This isn't about me, Cohen.

Study the original H & L thread I posted, which ran from 2004 to 2015.

Hargrove, Josephs, and Gaal debated Armstrong's evidence in great detail with Greg Parker, W. Tracy Parnell, and others.   I didn't see any evidence of the "debunking" that you and Bojczuk keep mentioning.

At one point, Greg Parker was even reproached by Don Jeffries for telling people that they shouldn't click on Hargrove's H & L links, because the site might have computer viruses!

It's not about you? You started the thread! And have since proceeded to tell everyone that you don't "see any evidence" that there are plausible alternatives to the "Harvey and Lee" theory here on the Education Forum or anywhere else. So, what exactly is it that we're doing here now?

39 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

So I find it rather odd that some current forum members have repeatedly claimed that Greg Parker, W. Tracy Parnell, et.al., have "debunked" Armstrong's data.

And I find it rather odd that you, despite telling us you haven't even read Armstrong's book, are able to proclaim that none of the work done over the past 20-plus years by top researchers passes muster for you in offering plausible, logical alternative explanations for a decades-long secret government doppelganger project.

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I wasn't aware of that. But the Oswald married to Marina and killed by Ruby (HARVEY Oswald) wasn't even related to John Pic. It was the other Oswald (LEE Oswald) who was Pic's step brother. I'll bet it was that Oswald who pulled the knife on Pic's wife. That kind of behavior DOES fit that Oswald's profile.

How convenient! The pre-teen doppelganger was the one who brandished a knife at John Pic's wife, and all the while nobody ever suspected that it wasn't actually the real Lee Harvey Oswald!

Not quite sure what's so surprising here -- serious, professional researchers change their mind all the time based on examining evidence. Do you have a problem with Gus Russo having done this?

50 minutes ago, Miles Massicotte said:

Do the Harvey and Lee people have any evidence for how, by what mechanism, and who accomplished this near unheard of feat? How presumably the CIA, or someone else with similar power, could be able to either

1) locate two children with similar names and resemblances and craft an intricately long plan to use one in a spycraft operation against the other

or

2) locate/create two Marguerites, hope they have similar looking children, and proceed with 1)

Am I missing something? Presume it is all true (and indeed Armstrong has uncovered a lot of good stuff). Isn't the fundamental premise of this just pure speculation, and a wild one at that?

Miles, excellent questions. As has been covered here on the forum and in many other places (Greg Parker's forum, Tracy Parnell's Web site), "Harvey and Lee" adherents have a range of answers to the above, all of which strain credulity at best (it was part of some World War II-era CIA scheme to infiltrate Russia!) and are absolutely ridiculous at worst (the doppelgangers just vanished into thin air after Nov. 22, 1963, while the one of the Marguerites was allowed to simply go on living as normal, while giving interviews to journalists for another 18 years; Oswald's brothers were "in" on the plot, as Marina, etc. etc.).

50 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And therefore we should disbelieve the theory, despite the enormous amount of circumstantial evidence for it? And always accept alternative explanations for the evidence, even when it's quite a stretch and sometimes even ridiculous?

Pretty much, yep .. considering the "Harvey and Lee" theory itself is the pinnacle of absurdity in the assassination research community.

31 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

      Yeah, sure thing, Jonathan.  Like the "reasonable, plausible alternative" explanation that an autism spectrum disorder might explain a Texas high school drop out's ability to read and discuss Turgenev and Dostoevsky in Russian?   Got it.

     As for Bojczuk's blather about Hoover, do you also deny that Hoover was quite aware of the Oswald doppelganger/imposter in Mexico City in 1963?

    The point I made, in passing, about Hoover after Oswald's defection, is that, even at that time, Hoover expressed concerns about a possible Oswald imposter.  And contrary to Bojczuk's rhetoric, I said nothing about the origin of such a putative doppelganger.

Yes. The notion that Oswald may have had enhanced auditory-based language learning abilities is much more plausible than a secret government program involving doppelgangers.

I've never denied Hoover referenced a possible Oswald imposter in Mexico City, as this is a matter of record. I trust you'd agree this has absolutely nothing to do with a secret government program involving doppelgangers. Again, you were the one that started this thread by asking what happened to said Oswald and Marguerite doppelgangers, and then went on to express your belief that there were indeed multiple Marguerites. Are you now saying you don't believe there were long-term doppelgangers, but rather just someone impersonating Oswald?

55 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

    Parnell is a guy who has relentlessly promoted Fred Litwin's debunked, "On the Trail of the Delusion," propaganda about Jim Garrison.  Great resource there.

Who cares what he promotes? You started this thread asking for opinions on what happened to the "other" Oswald and the "other" Marguerite, and Tracy's Web site offers reasonable, plausible alternatives to that and every other major "Harvey and Lee" theory and beyond.

36 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Greg Parker and Jim Purtell make a very compelling case that Oswald had enhanced language abilities as a result of Aspergers - which I think makes perfect sense. 

http://www.jfkconversations.com/lee-oswald-russian-language

Tom, great point -- and certainly much more plausible than what "Harvey and Lee" bafflingly postulates.

6 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

     What is your opinion about "Harvey" Oswald's alleged ability to read and discuss Turgenev and Dostoevsky in Russian?

     It, certainly, struck me as something quite unusual for a formerly dyslexic Texas teenager who dropped out of high school at a young age to join the Marines.  I can't picture Lee Oswald reading and discussing the philosophical musings of Ivan Karamazov in Russian!

      Are you familiar with Armstrong's discussion of that subject?

My opinion is that there's no reason to believe Oswald's Russian-language abilities are suspicious or proof of some secret, decades-long doppelganger program. Many people with dyslexia have enhanced auditory learning abilities, as Oswald appeared to possess. 

There's a long thread on this subject here, although it's cluttered by the usual nonsense from Jim Hargrove and John Butler about a doppelganger who was a native Russian speaker. Jeremy Bojzcuk points out numerous inconsistencies in the "Harvey and Lee" version of events, which in reality shows that Oswald's Russian was quite limited when he first arrived in Russia. He became much more proficient over his time there by speaking it everyday.

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Your evidence had nothing to do with the topic being discussed.

It sure does. I cited Pic's testimony to support the idea that just because he said he didn't recognize his brother in one photo, it doesn't mean he thought his brother had been replaced by a doppelganger. You are the one claiming there were two "Oswalds," not John Pic.

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The boy was (supposedly) Lee, and yet Pic didn't recognize him in the picture? That supports the notion that there were two LHOs. The one in the Bronx Zoo photo was the one that wasn't Pic's half-brother.

It only "supports the notion" to you. No reasonable person would make this leap of logic, but that's what this absolutely inane theory requires of its adherents.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Hey, you're the one who confused "I don't recognize him as my brother" with "my brother looked different after ten years."

Dead wrong, again. This aspect of the thread began when W. Niederhut referenced "John Pic's testimony that the man we all know as Lee Harvey Oswald was not his younger half-brother Lee Oswald." John Pic never said it "was not" Oswald. He simply said he didn't recognize him in one of many photos shown to him while testifying. I then provided further evidence from Pic's testimony that he noticed significant changes in Oswald's appearance after not having seen him in person for more than a decade. Not a shred of what Pic said supports the notion that there was more than one Oswald or that Pic ever thought there was.

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jonathan just made that up.

Here is John Pic's WC testimony:

Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that?
Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City?
Mr. PIC - No, sir.

According to Mr. Jenner, John Pic saw his brother Lee Harvey Oswald the very same year that picture was taken. Yet Pic didn't recognize the boy in the photo as his brother.

 

I didn't make up anything. Your reading comprehension is poor, as usual. Pic's testimony is below, regarding his first encounter with Oswald after not having seen him for more than a decade. Just because he said he didn't recognize pre-teen Oswald in one solitary photo in no way means he thought his brother had been replaced by a doppelganger, and it's that type of fact-free assumption that makes "Harvey and Lee" the laughingstock of the assassination research community.

Mr. JENNER. You noticed, did you. a material change, physically first, let’s take his physical appearance?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir. Physically I noticed that.

Mr. JENNER. What did you notice?

Mr. PIC. He was much thinner than I had remembered him. He didn’t have as much hair.

Mr. JENNER. Did that arrest your attention ? Was that a material difference? Did that strike you?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir ; it struck me quite profusely.

Mr. JENNER. What else did you notice about his physical appearance that arrested your attention?

Mr. PIC. His face features were somewhat different, being his eyes were set back maybe, you know like in these Army pictures, they looked different than I remembered him. His face was rounder. Marilyn had described him to me when he went in the Marine Corps as having a bull neck. This I didn’t notice at all. I looked for this, I didn’t notice this at all, sir.

Mr. JENNER. He seemed more slender?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNEB. He had materially less hair?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. His eyes seemed a little sunken?

Mr. PIC. Yes, sir.

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Indeed, I have.  But I don't see an elevated lesion below the lids on the photos.  Do you?

Nor do the two women resemble each other, as witnesses who knew them in real life have also attested.

Meanwhile, how do explain John Pic's testimony that the man we all know as Lee Harvey Oswald was not his younger half-brother Lee Oswald?

Any thoughts?

That is not at all what he said. He said, after not having seen Lee in 10 years, that his appearance was quite different -- that he had lost weight and had started to go bald. He never once said or even intimated that the person he was in the presence of was NOT his brother.

Furthermore, there are so many logical fallacies one would have to accept with a Marguerite doppelganger theory. For one thing, why on earth would the evil government plotters allow ANY Marguerite to give interview after interview for another 18 years after the assassination, much less testify to the Warren Commission? Do you believe Robert Oswald just happily went along with the conspiracy that his mother was actually two different people? It defies credulity.

25 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

What amazes me is that people are so willing to accept a single, possibly photo-shopped, image of a mole as proof that the two strikingly dissimilar Marguerites are the same person.

Have you ever considered the possibility that she wore makeup to cover the mole? Or asked to have the mole retouched in the photos that were taken in a professional studio?

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

As for the alleged "debunking" of John Armstrong's doppelganger research about Oswald, I'm underwhelmed. 

There seems to be ample evidence of Oswald doppelgangers.   I actually reviewed several Harvey & Lee threads in the forum archives yesterday before starting this thread, and didn't find any bona fide "debunking" of Armstrong's theory.

There's a HUGE difference between Armstrong's ludicrous doppelganger theory and the theory that the one and only historical Lee Harvey Oswald may have been impersonated at certain points prior to the assassination. There's actual evidence for the latter. As Jeremy points out, the evidence for the former is completely built on Armstrong's misinterpretation of documents and photos.

3 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

The impression I got of Harry was that he was an honest man and we need more like him in this age of fakery and deceit.

His claims were not supported by document releases, as repeatedly outlined by Ernie Lazar on this forum.

19 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

My, she did not age well in 18 years.

No, she didn't. Many people don't, though. No doppelgangers necessary.

3 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Tony,

   I haven't really studied the Harvey & Lee theory, other than reading John Armstrong's two Probe Magazine essays on the subject in DiEugenio's Assassinations anthology today.

   Who "debunked" Armstrong's rather detailed findings?

 

"Findings" is a generous word to describe what Armstrong has brought forth. I don't think many people quibble with how his research has generated a wealth of relevant source documents, and the fact that he's made them all available through Baylor is very commendable. However, his interpretation of this information is flawed beyond belief and ultimately quite preposterous. There are dozens of threads on this forum where reasonable alternate explanations for Armstrong's theories have been presented, none of which require a decades-long secret government program involving multiple doppelgangers. Tracy Parnell's Web site is a fantastic repository for laying out the logical fallacies of the "Harvey and Lee" theory.

1 hour ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Who, in your estimation, was arrested inside the Texas Theater? If it wasn't Oswald, who was it, and what happened to the real Oswald? If it was Oswald, did he buy a ticket or not?

Paging Jim Hargrove, John Butler and Sandy Larsen for doppelgänger cleanup in aisle 3 …

1 hour ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Another obvious candidate would be Chris Scally (although I'm not exactly sure when he started writing about the case).

Mark, good point. Chris has been a member of this forum in the past, although I don't believe he has posted here regularly in many years.

19 minutes ago, Derek Thibeault said:

Most of the researchers that are big I have seen in this forum, who is missing besides the people who have passed? Robert Groden, Josiah Thompson, John Barbour, John Newman, Jim Douglass, Lisa Pease, David Lifton?

Josiah Thompson and David Lifton are members of this forum. Personally, I would love to see contributions here from Gary Aguilar, Steve Barber and Dave Reitzes, and especially Greg Parker. 

2 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

Is it possible Bob is alluding to some sort of edict against the Kennedy's?

No… because he’s a creative human being utilizing dramatic license in the form of a song, rather than the puppet of evil government overlords you seem to think he is.

5 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

This rings a bell. For a while now, Gil has been taunting an a.c.jfk poster who goes by the name of Chris/Christopher by calling him Chrissy/Christina. The justification being some misogynistic nonsense that doesn't bear repeating. Then, about a month ago, he began floating the idea that "Chrissy" was actually Bill Brown who posts here and a few other places. It's not clear how this new theory deals with the question of gender, but I sure look forward to see Gil's evidence either way.

I also wonder what compelled Gil to edit out the homophobic and transphobic statements from his post on June 22, only a portion of which is preserved in my quote reply in that thread.