Jeremy Bojczuk

Sandy Larsen writes: But you are claiming that those things happened. The 'Harvey and Lee' theory claims that the CIA wanted to recruit a false defector who had an American background and an understanding of Russian. Is that not what the theory claims? The theory also claims that the CIA's method of recruiting one false defector was to recruit four people - two Oswald doppelgangers and two Marguerite doppelgangers - and keep the double-doppelganger charade going for over a decade. Is that not what the theory claims? The theory also claims that the CIA's decision, to recruit one person with an American background who knew Russian, was made roughly a decade before the defector would actually be required to defect. Is that not what the theory claims? We know that there were millions of people with genuine American backgrounds. We know that a decade is more than enough time to acquire the level of Russian that the CIA's supposed plan required. The CIA would have known these things too, wouldn't they? The CIA would also have known that all they needed to do was to recruit one genuine American and get him to learn Russian. The CIA would have worked this out pretty quickly, wouldn't they? But, according to the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, the CIA decided not to take advantage of this simple and obvious solution. According to the theory, the CIA decided to do something much more complicated instead. Unfortunately, the theory doesn't offer any explanation of why the CIA would have gone to all this trouble. As far as I'm aware, the cult's holy book contains nothing about this. None of the believers on this forum have been able to offer an explanation either. Why is this part of the theory missing? The CIA's supposed decision to set up a long-term project involving two pairs of doppelgangers isn't some trivial detail. It is the central element of the theory. If there really was such a project, there must have been a reason for its existence. But no-one seems to know what that reason was. Why is the 'Harvey and Lee' theory unable to explain this? ----- Returning from the realm of doppelgangered fantasy to the real world and the subject of this thread, Ed's scenario makes a lot of sense:

Sandy Larsen writes: I'm not saying what the CIA wanted to do. I'm reporting what the 'Harvey and Lee' theory claims is what the CIA wanted to do: send to the Soviet Union a false defector with a plausible American background. That is what the theory claims, isn't it? The plausible American background is an essential part of the theory, isn't it? I'm just making the observation that if the CIA really had wanted to do that, the CIA could not possibly have overlooked the most obvious way to achieve that goal. If you need someone with a plausible American background, you choose an actual American. That is the easiest way to achieve that goal, isn't it? The 'Harvey and Lee' theory claims that the CIA didn't do that. But the theory is unable to explain why the CIA didn't do that. The theory is incoherent. The fantasists who dreamed it up didn't think this stuff through. But you do presume to know what the CIA did, and what it wanted to do, namely to recruit a false defector who possessed: an American background and a knowledge of Russian that would allow him to understand what was being said around him. You also presume to know how the CIA went about achieving that goal: recruit four people instead of just one, and set up a complicated decade-long scheme involving two pairs of doppelgangers, instead of just letting the one person learn Russian. It is a fundamental claim of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory that the CIA decided to set up a long-term double-doppelganger scheme. If, as the theory claims, the CIA made that decision, the CIA must have had a good reason for doing so, mustn't it? What was the reason for making that decision? You need to fill in this gaping hole in your theory. Why on earth would any rational organisation have made that particular decision?

John Butler writes: It's because, according to 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine, the CIA required one person with a plausible American background. If you need someone with a plausible American background, what's the first thing you'd think of doing? You'd think about recruiting a genuine American, wouldn't you? I would have thought that was kind of obvious. There was no shortage of Americans with genuine American backgrounds. Why choose an immigrant from Europe instead? And why recruit four people when you only need to recruit one? What, according to the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, was the CIA's thinking process? They must have had a good reason for doing what you say they did, if they actually did it. What was that reason?

John Butler writes: That sums up the mentality of the few remaining believers in this far-fetched, poorly thought-out, incoherent and long-discredited theory. If you believe the theory, you believe that the CIA decided, some time around 1950, that several years in the future they would send to the Soviet Union a false defector, and that this defector needed to possess two things: a genuine American background and an understanding of Russian. You understand that all the CIA needed to do was recruit an American and spend the intervening years getting him to learn Russian. You believe that instead of simply recruiting one American adult and getting him to learn Russian, the CIA decided to recruit four people, including one boy who already understood Russian but didn't have an American background, and one boy who did have an American background but didn't understand Russian, and that the CIA would get one of the boys to impersonate the other for more than a decade. You are unable to explain why the CIA would have chosen this absurdly complicated solution when a far simpler solution existed. You aren't concerned about your inability to explain how this scheme could ever have been chosen. You believe that the CIA recruited a mother for each of the boys, and that the two mothers looked near enough identical to each other, apart from their eyebrows. You believe that the CIA maintained two households, each containing an Oswald doppelganger and a Marguerite doppelganger, for more than a decade, up to the weekend of the JFK assassination. You accept that people can be impersonated without the use of doppelgangers, but you are unable to explain why it was necessary to use doppelgangers in this case. You believe that the CIA hoped that when the two boys grew up, they would magically come to look near enough identical, and that - hey presto! - the boys did indeed end up looking near enough identical, apart from their heights, which were so remarkably flexible that one of the Oswald doppelgangers left the Marines measuring 5' 11", then shrank to 5' 6" a few years later, and grew back to 5' 11" by the time of the assassination. You believe that the boy who was recruited specifically for his understanding of Russian was allowed, by the CIA masterminds who were supervising his development, to forget the language, so that he had to learn the language again shortly before he defected, thereby making the whole double-doppelganger project redundant. You believe that once one of the Oswald doppelgangers was shot by Jack Ruby, the other Oswald doppelganger and one of the Marguerite doppelgangers vanished into thin air. You have no explanation for the sudden disappearance of one Oswald doppelganger and one Marguerite doppelganger. You aren't concerned ("Who knows what happened to Lee") about your inability to explain what happened to the missing pair of doppelgangers. You aren't concerned that the theory you believe in was dreamed up by two people, one of whom believed that the moon landings were faked, and the other of whom was happy to mislead the readers of his book about the results of Oswald's exhumation in 1981. You aren't concerned about the harm that the double-doppelganger fantasy might cause, if newcomers to the JFK assassination debate concluded that all critics of the lone-gunman idea were a bunch of tin-foil hat-wearing crazies.

Robert Charles-Dunne writes: We have to consider the possibility that Armstrong isn't sufficiently concerned about whether what he writes is true or false. I'm sure most of us by now are familiar with Armstrong's approach to Oswald's exhumation in 1981. Armstrong claimed that the body in Oswald's grave was that of an imaginary doppelganger who had not undergone a mastoidectomy operation. The exhumation disproved Armstrong's claim, by showing that the body in question had in fact undergone a mastoidectomy operation. Armstrong's elaborate chronology of his two doppelgangers' lives is central to his theory. The exhumation shows that this chronology cannot be true, and that a fundamental aspect of his theory is wrong. What did Armstrong do? Did he admit that his theory was wrong? No, he simply failed to inform his readers about the mastoidectomy evidence from the exhumation, and repeated his claim that the body was that of the imaginary doppelganger who had not undergone the operation. Armstrong certainly knew about the pathologists' report of the exhumation, since he cited it in his book, which was published nearly 20 years after the exhumation. Armstrong must have assumed that back then, in the early days of the world-wide web, few people would be able to consult the report (L.E. Norton, J.A. Coffone, I.M. Sopher, and V.J.M. DiMaio, ‘The Exhu­mation and Identification of Lee Harvey Oswald,’ Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol.29 no.1 [January 1984], pp.19–38). Unfortunately, a text version is now available online: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/parnell/nreport.htm. Armstrong has been rumbled. Armstrong misled his readers by not telling them that the exhumation report contradicted a central element of his theory. It doesn't look good, does it?

Jim Hargrove writes: I'm not just asking you to believe that these witnesses were wrong. I gave a link to Mark Stevens' work which explains why they do not support the claim that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling school. None of the witnesses Jim mentions are reliable, for the reasons Mark gave in the thread I linked to. They were variously mistaken, or gave contradictory evidence, or didn't know Oswald, or didn't attend Stripling themselves. On that thread, Jim and his small number of fellow cult members were unable to overcome Mark's arguments. Until they do so (on that thread, please), there is no good reason to believe the claim that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling. Unfortunately, the Stripling episode was an essential element of the 'Harvey and Lee' narrative. I understand Jim's need to save face after spending more than twenty years promoting this nonsense. I appreciate that his only remaining tactic is to keep on repeating points of doctrine. But it doesn't look good when he fails to acknowledge the existence of evidence and arguments which undermine that doctrine. Anyone who is genuinely interested in finding out whether an Oswald doppelganger actually attended Stripling merely has to follow the link and read what Mark Stevens and others have written: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/ Why didn't Jim do what Mark did, and examine Armstrong's evidence critically, looking for weaknesses? If you want to know whether a claim is true or false, that's what you have to do. If, on the other hand, you're not concerned about whether a claim is true or false, and you just want to believe, then you do what Jim does. Don't apply any critical thought. Just accept what you're told. Ignore any evidence and arguments to the contrary. To find out the truth about the assassination, it really is necessary to question not only the lone-gunman claims but also the pro-conspiracy claims, and especially the far-fetched conspiracy claims. The more far-fetched they are, the less likely they are to be true, as we have seen here.

Sandy Larsen writes: No, Mark didn't just declare that each piece of evidence was wrong. He examined each piece of evidence and explained why it was inadequate. For each of the supposed eye-witnesses to an Oswald doppelganger at Stripling, Mark showed one or more of the following things: The witness was mistaken. The witness contradicted his or her own statements. The witness contradicted elements of the 'Harvey and Lee' narrative. The witness didn't actually know Oswald at the time. The witness didn't actually attend Stripling himself. The witness was interviewed several decades after the event. Most of the witnesses cited by John Armstrong in his book, and by Jim Hargrove repeatedly in this forum, fall into more than one of those categories. Mark also pointed out the limited amount of evidence for a doppelganger at Stripling. The supposed witnesses cited by Armstrong are only a tiny minority of those who would have encountered the doppelganger at Stripling. He also pointed out that one witness in particular who might be expected to have remembered Oswald, did not do so. Mrs Bratton, who taught at Stripling at the time the Oswald doppelganger was supposed to have been there, later wrote about the Oswald family but somehow failed to mention his attendance at Stripling. In addition to dealing with Armstrong's witnesses, Mark provided a plausible explanation for the repeated mentions in the local newspaper. The paper simply recycled the material in its files, as newspapers commonly did and probably still do. Mark provided evidence for this: several of the reports use the same form of words, and none of the reports cited any new witnesses apart from Robert Oswald. What Mark (and others, such as Robert Charles-Dunne) did in that thread was what John Armstrong and his cult followers should have done. He examined each piece of evidence critically, and searched for weaknesses. I wonder why Armstrong didn't do that. If anyone wants to look at the evidence and arguments in detail, this is where you can find it: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/ There are two points to be made here: Firstly, it is not true that the Stripling evidence was dismissed by simply claiming that the witnesses were mistaken. Each item of evidence was examined and shown to have a more plausible explanation than that offered by Armstrong. If a more plausible explanation exists, we should accept it and discard the less plausible explanation, shouldn't we? Secondly, the Stripling claim was an essential component of the 'Harvey and Lee' narrative. Since the Stripling evidence is worthless and there is no good reason to suppose that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling school, that's the end of the theory, isn't it? Can the 'Harvey and Lee' story survive without the Stripling episode? If anyone thinks that it can, perhaps they could explain their reasoning. How many other elements of the double-doppelganger nonsense can be sacrificed before the theory disappears in a puff of smoke? If a plausible explanation exists for, say, the Bolton Ford episode, would the 'Harvey and Lee' story survive? Or the Texas Theater episode? Or the mastoidectomy evidence from the exhumation? Or Oswald's acquisition of Russian? All of these elements are essential parts of the 'Harvey and Lee' story, aren't they? If there is a plausible explanation for any of them, let alone all of them, how can the theory survive? -- P.S. Jim claimed a few posts ago that I have never suggested on this forum that Oswald might have been impersonated. As it happens, I did so a couple of times on page 7 of that Stripling thread, e.g.: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/?do=findComment&comment=438949 Impersonations do not require doppelgangers. They certainly don't require long-term projects involving two pairs of doppelgangers that could never have been set up because a far simpler alternative existed.

Then Jim produces something worth discussing: At last, we have a sort of answer to the question I asked earlier: why did those CIA masterminds use doppelgangers when there was no need to use doppelgangers? According to holy scripture, it's because doppelgangers provide deniability. But deniability is a solution to a non-existent problem. Without doppelgangers, there would be nothing that needed to be denied. All Jim's CIA masterminds needed to do was recruit an American and get him to learn Russian. They would never even have considered the possibility of setting up a long-term doppelganger scheme, would they?

Jim Hargrove writes: It isn't remarkable at all, because it isn't true. "Never, ever"? Plenty of people have debated this nonsense "right here" in numerous threads over many years. Unfortunately for Jim, almost no-one finds it convincing. The double-doppelganger nonsense has, of course, been discussed elsewhere too. Look at all the 'Harvey and Lee' talking points mentioned here: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13-debunked Jim has been invited to join that forum. I'm sure he will if he thinks his evidence can stand up to questioning. I can do that too: Nothing significant about alien abductions has been disproved! Nothing significant about the faked moon landings theory has been disproved! Nothing significant about the flat earth theory has been disproved! Nothing significant about the lizard people has been disproved! When it comes to proof and disproof, it's important to understand that it's up to Jim to prove his claims, but it isn't up to critics to disprove them. All we need to do is show that a plausible alternative explanation exists for a particular claim. This raises an interesting question. How many 'Harvey and Lee' talking points need to be disposed of before the theory becomes worthless? I'd suggest that disposing of any significant claim will invalidate the theory as a whole. Once Mark Stevens disposed of the Stripling evidence, for example, did that discredit the whole theory? After all, one essential part of the theory is the claim that an Oswald doppelganger attended that school, and Mark has shown that no good evidence exists to support that claim. Or what about the evidence that the body exhumed from Oswald's grave in 1981 had undergone a mastoidectomy? It is an essential part of Armstrong's chronology that the doppelganger who underwent the mastoidectomy was not the one who was buried in the grave. That claim has been absolutely disproved. Surely that alone makes the theory worthless. Since there is no good evidence that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling, and it is certain that no Oswald doppelganger was buried in Oswald's grave, does the theory still exist? Here we go again. As soon as I pointed out that Jim is like a religious fundamentalist, ignoring criticism and instead repeatedly quoting holy scripture, he vomits up more holy scripture. If Jim thinks he can revive the nonsensical claim that a non-existent Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling, here's where he should do it: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/

Sandy Larsen writes: Sandy should recall it, because he has contributed to many of those threads. The classic example is probably this one: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/ Mark Stevens destroyed the notion that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling school, an essential element of the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense. By the way, if anyone wants to argue otherwise, please do so on that thread, not this one. Also of interest in that thread is Jim's reply to Mark's opening comment. Did Jim respond to the points Mark made? Of course he didn't! Did Jim simply regurgitate passages from holy scripture? Of course he did! As Jonathan points out, every substantial piece of evidence put forward by the double-doppelganger gang has been taken to pieces either on this forum or elsewhere. What's worth remembering is that it is up to the double-doppelganger gang to prove their case. It isn't up to anyone else to disprove it. All that the rest of us need to do is show that, for each claim, an equally plausible or more plausible explanation exists. Almost any explanation that doesn't involve doppelgangers is going to be more plausible than one that does. A good example of that is Greg Parker and Jim Purtnell's article about Oswald's acquisition of Russian, which I mentioned earlier: http://www.jfkconversations.com/lee-oswald-russian-language That article gives a plausible explanation that doesn't require the use of doppelgangers. Of course, whenever something like Stripling or the infamous 13-inch head gets thoroughly debunked, that's a bonus. (Again, if anyone wants to discuss Oswald's Russian, there are other threads dedicated to that question, so please use one of them.) Now, can anyone come up with a plausible reason why those masterminds would have set up a long-term project involving two pairs of doppelgangers when they had a simpler and far more obvious alternative? It cannot have happened, can it?

Jim Hargrove writes: Yes, you did miss it. I have long considered that Oswald was probably impersonated (see here) and probably had connections to one or more US intelligence agencies (see here). As far as I can tell, that view is very common among critics of the lone-gunman theory. The only lone-gunman advocate that I'm aware of who actively questions Jim's far-fetched double-doppelganger nonsense is Tracy Parnell. I assume Tracy doesn't agree with me that Oswald probably was impersonated or probably had intelligence connections. But almost everyone who thinks that Jim's double-doppelganger theory is nonsense also thinks that the lone-gunman theory is nonsense. The double-doppelganger theory is not necessary to explain the assassination as a conspiracy. Not only is it unnecessary, but it has the potential to be harmful, because it is so far-fetched that it allows the media to portray the rest of us as tin-foil hat-wearing crazies. Just because the CIA did bad things doesn't mean they did irrational and unnecessary things. What they did was perfectly rational, in that it served their political and institutional purposes. None of the things Jim mentions were done for no good reason. But Jim is claiming that they did other things for no good reason. There was no good reason for them to have set up a long-term project involving two pairs of doppelgangers, because a far simpler and more obvious alternative existed. Jim is claiming that they did this for a reason. But he has as good as admitted that there was no reason. His claim makes no sense. This is the basic flaw in the notion of a long-term project involving doppelgangers. There was no good reason for its existence. It could never have happened. It isn't pointless at all. It's essential. Jim needs to produce a plausible motive, because he is claiming that they did something they had every reason not to do. We know that doppelgangers are not necessary in order to impersonate people. We know that doppelgangers would not have been necessary in order to produce a false defector who had an American background and understood Russian, which Jim claims is what the CIA wanted to produce. Jim needs to come up with a plausible reason for the decision to set up a long-term scheme involving not one but two pairs of doppelgangers, and keeping it going for over a decade, when all the CIA needed to do was recruit one person and get him to learn Russian. As I've pointed out before when Jim made the same claim using the same examples, none of the examples he gives were part of any long-term project involving two pairs of doppelgangers. Long-term projects involving two pairs of doppelgangers are not common. In fact, there are no examples of this in the real world, at least that I'm aware of. Nor, of course, are there any examples in the real world of rogue intelligence agencies setting up long-term double-doppelganger projects when they had far simpler alternatives available. That's the problem, isn't it? Jim is like a religious fundamentalist, repeatedly quoting passages from his holy book while ignoring arguments to the contrary: Jim quotes a passage from the Gospel According to Armstrong. Someone provides evidence and argument against it, either pointing out its weaknesses or demolishing it outright. Jim quotes the same passage again, with no acknowledgement of the criticisms that have been made. Someone again provides evidence and argument against it, either pointing out its weaknesses or demolishing it outright. Jim quotes the same passage again, with no acknowledgement of the criticisms that have been made. Repeat ad nauseam. If at first people don't believe you, keep quoting holy scripture at them. Not only is it trolling, but it doesn't work. Jim has been doing this for over twenty years, and next to no-one has joined his cult.

It's difficult to get a straight answer out of Jim when he's on the ropes, ins't it? I invite everyone to compare his non-answers to the questions I asked: Does Jim accept that someone can be impersonated without the use of doppelgangers? What were the reasons for setting up a complex long-term impersonation project involving two pairs of doppelgangers when there was no need to do so? To the first question, "yes", "no" or "I don't know" would be acceptable, honest answers. The only reasonable answer would be: "no, of course doppelgangers aren't necessary". Jim's repeated refusal to answer this question shows that he agrees with the rest of us that impersonating someone does not require the use of doppelgangers. To the second question, an acceptable answer would involve a statement like: "I can't think of a reason for using two pairs of doppelgangers when there was no need to do so". Or maybe: "I can think of a reason why those masterminds would have set up such an absurdly complex scheme, and I will now give you that reason". Again, Jim's repeated refusal to give a straight answer, not just in this thread but in several others over the past year or two, shows that no good reason existed. Jim's preposterously complex long-term double-doppelganger project could never have been implemented.

Jim continues: No, they are central to Jim's theory. He is claiming that the CIA set up a long-term project involving two pairs of doppelgangers, in order to produce a false defector with an American background who could understand Russian. I've pointed out that they could have achieved this goal using a far simpler method: recruit a genuine American, and get him to learn Russian. What Jim needs to do is tell us why anyone in their right mind would have set up something as complex and unnecessary as a long-term double-doppelganger project when a far simpler alternative was available. Jim is claiming that the CIA did something that no-one would have done, and he is unable to explain why they did it. Why would they have made the irrational decision to use two pairs of doppelgangers when there was no need to do so? Correct, provided you fill in the rest of the nonsensical claim. There was no reason to pick two people when one would do. There was no reason to pick one American boy (for his genuine American background) and one Hungarian boy (for his partial knowledge of Russian), and hope that when they grew up they would turn out to look identical, and pick two mothers for the two boys, and maintain these two households for a decade or more, when all they had to do was pick one American adult with a genuine American background and get him to learn Russian. Why would they go for the complicated solution when a far simpler solution was available?

Jim Hargrove writes: I'd agree that Oswald appears to have had connections with one or more US intelligence agencies, and that this connection may well have been utilised in the JFK assassination. I'd also agree that Oswald was probably impersonated in the run-up to the assassination. But none of those things demand the use of doppelgangers, do they? I presume even Jim accepts that it is not necessary to use doppelgangers in order to impersonate someone. Will he have the honesty to admit that much? He probably won't, because once he admits that doppelgangers aren't necessary, his whole fantastical claim collapses. If doppelgangers aren't necessary to impersonate someone in the real world, it certainly wouldn't be necessary to use two pairs of them in a fictional world when a plausible alternative would have existed. Let's go over Jim's reasons for the use of doppelgangers: Oswald had intelligence connections - does not require the use of doppelgangers. Intelligence agencies were behind the JFK assassination - does not require the use of doppelgangers. Oswald was impersonated in the run-up to the assassination - does not require the use of doppelgangers. Why would anyone set up a long-term double-doppelganger scheme when there was no need to do so, Jim?

Jim Hargrove writes: All the 'Harvey and Lee' talking points Jim keeps regurgitating have been discussed umpteen times, on this forum and elsewhere. If Jim is genuinely curious about Oswald's knowledge of Russian, and is genuinely prepared to change his mind if he's proved wrong (which I doubt), here are a couple of links which debunk this element of the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2313-oswald-and-the-russian-language http://www.jfkconversations.com/lee-oswald-russian-language The matter was also discussed in detail on this forum not too long ago: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26571-oswalds-language-abilities-and-evidence-related-to-his-soviet-sojourn-1959-63/ If Jim has anything new to say on this topic, he should do so on that thread or one of the others that are dedicated to that topic. If he has nothing new to say, he should try to provide straight answers to the questions I asked: Does Jim accept that someone can be impersonated without the use of doppelgangers? What were the reasons for setting up a complex long-term impersonation project involving two pairs of doppelgangers when there was no need to do so?

John Butler writes: But Jim hasn't done any of that. He has avoided answering both of the questions I asked. The first question Jim avoided was to do with the obvious fact that if you want to impersonate someone, you don't need to use doppelgangers. I assume that everyone accepts this, even Jim. Unfortunately, Jim doesn't possess sufficient honesty or strength of mind to admit it, because he knows that if doppelgangers are unnecessary, his pet theory unravels. The second question Jim avoided was to do with the motivation of his supposed masterminds. Why did they do what Jim claims they did? He claims that they set up a complex impersonation scheme that involved not one but two pairs of doppelgangers, and that they maintained this scheme for a decade or more. But, as I've pointed out, there was no need for them to do this. A far simpler, cheaper and more obvious alternative existed. If Jim thinks his masterminds decided to go with the more complex scheme, he really needs to show that they had a good reason for doing so. But he hasn't. Jim hasn't answered that question. He has in effect admitted that his long-term double-doppelganger scheme could never have existed. I'll give him another opportunity. Jim, why did those masterminds decide to implement a long-term scheme involving two pairs of doppelgangers when there was no need to do so?

Jim Hargrove writes: Does Jim seriously equate criticism of his absurd theory with defending the CIA? Wow. Those of us who question his absurd theory do so for two main reasons: because it is obviously absurd, and because it is liable to harm the public image of genuine critics of the lone-gunman orthodoxy. That public image is under attack by the media, who claim that all critics of the lone-gunman orthodoxy are semi-paranoid 'conspiracy theorists'. Of course, that characterisation is not accurate. The majority of people who question the lone-gunman theory do so rationally, using solid evidence and coherent arguments. But there are, unfortunately, a number of semi-paranoid 'conspiracy theorists' (in the propaganda sense of the term) who have attached themselves like leeches to the JFK assassination. They question the lone-gunman theory irrationally, using weak evidence and incoherent arguments. Among them is Jim Hargrove, with his promotion of an incoherent theory about a long-term double-doppelganger project that cannot have happened. Jim has demonstrated that it cannot have happened by his repeated inability to provide a plausible account of why such a project would ever have been implemented. It isn't the rational critics who are doing the CIA's work. That job is being done by Jim and other peddlers of far-fetched, incoherent theories which provide ammunition for the propaganda line that only tin-foil-hat types question the lone-gunman orthodoxy. No, I want Jim to explain the thinking that went on when the absurd double-doppelganger theory was being dreamed up by Jack 'the moon landings were faked' White and John Armstrong. When these fantasists came up with this nonsense, they neglected to dream up a plausible motivation for their supposed perpetrators. Why would anyone have decided to set up a long-term impersonation scheme involving doppelgangers when there was no need to do so? That's what I wanted Jim to explain. If such a scheme existed, there must have been a good reason why it was chosen ahead of a far simpler and more obvious alternative. Jim's repeated inability to come up with a good reason demonstrates that there was no good reason. Jim has spent more than twenty years unsuccessfully pimping a theory that is not only far-fetched but also incoherent. He must have worked out long ago that there was no way the scheme he proposes could have existed. It would be helpful if Jim could, at long last, deal with the question honestly and admit that the scheme he proposes could never have happened because there was never any good reason for setting it up.

Jim Hargrove writes: But I didn't ignore Jim's answers, such as they were. I actually quoted them in my comment at the top of this page. Jim, as usual, didn't deal with the points I raised in my questions. As far as the first question is concerned, I think we can assume that he agrees with me that it's possible for people to be impersonated without the involvement of doppelgangers, let alone two pairs of doppelgangers. The second question is the important one, because it reveals a fundamental problem with Jim's theory. He is claiming that "the CIA" did something which they had every reason not to do. If, as Jim claims, they wanted to produce a false defector with a plausible American background who could understand Russian, all they had to do was recruit a genuine American, with a genuine American background, and get him to learn Russian to a reasonable level. According to Jim's account, more than enough time was available for an intelligent American to learn Russian to the required level. This would have required far fewer people, and thus cost far less, than a long-term double-doppelganger project. There would have been much less risk of discovery by the Soviet authorities. If "the CIA" wanted to impersonate Oswald in order to implicate him in the assassination, as may actually have happened, a small number of ad hoc impersonations in the run-up to the assassination were all that was required. "The CIA" had every reason not to set up a project involving a genuine Oswald, an Oswald impersonator, a genuine Marguerite, and a Marguerite impersonator, and to keep that project running for more than a decade. There was no necessity to set up a long-term project involving two pairs of doppelgangers, was there? Will Jim at least admit that much?

Sandy Larsen writes: I'm expecting Jim to have a reasonable explanation for why "the CIA" (whatever that means in this context) did what he thinks they did. If they really did set up and maintain a project involving two pairs of doppelgangers for over a decade, they must have had a good reason for doing so, mustn't they? Jim thinks "the CIA" did do this. He must have satisfied himself that they had a good reason for doing this. Why is he so reluctant to share that reason with the rest of us? There was no good reason for setting up such a complex scheme, was there?

Unsurprisingly, Jim has again failed to answer a couple of straightforward questions. Question 1: Does Jim accept that someone can be impersonated without the use of doppelgangers? Jim's non-answer: The purpose of my question was to get Jim to acknowledge the obvious fact that impersonations do not require the use of doppelgangers. This was the point Jonathan made in the comment Jim seemed to think was so important that he made a screen shot of it. Surely Jim can acknowledge that impersonations do not require the use of doppelgangers. Of course, once you acknowledge that, you're not far from acknowledging that long-term projects involving two pairs of doppelgangers aren't necessary either. Question 2: What were the reasons for setting up a complex long-term impersonation project involving two pairs of doppelgangers when there was no need to do so? Jim's non-answer: The purpose of this question was to allow Jim to fill in an important gap in his theory. Jim claims that a group of CIA masterminds decided to recruit a doppelganger Oswald and a doppelganger Marguerite, and decided to keep both pairs of doppelgangers going for over a decade. But he hasn't explained why those masterminds would have decided to do any of this. As far as I'm aware, Armstrong's book Harvey and Lee doesn't offer an explanation either. As I understand it, what the masterminds wanted was a false defector who: had a plausible American background; and would be able to understand the Russian that would be spoken around him in the Soviet Union. As I've pointed out repeatedly, this goal could be achieved more easily than by setting up a long-term double-doppelganger project. All the masterminds needed to do was recruit an American with a talent for languages. There would have been ample time to get the American up to speed in Russian. Doppelgangers were not required. Recruiting an American would have been simpler, cheaper, and far more obvious than setting up and maintaining Jim's supposed long-term double-doppelganger project. The simple solution would have been so obvious that no-one would have even considered the possibility of using doppelgangers. Jim's hypothetical project could never have happened. If those masterminds did do what Jim claims they did, the masterminds must have had a good reason, mustn't they? What was that reason?

It's curious that I asked Jim a couple of awkward questions yesterday, and instead of replying to them he replied to something I'd written two weeks earlier. Jim has been claiming that, if Oswald was impersonated, there must have existed a long-term scheme involving two pairs of doppelgangers. But he hasn't told us why such a scheme was necessary. He needs to explain: why he thinks impersonations require the use of doppelgangers; and why he thinks it was necessary to implement such a preposterously complex scheme in order to produce a false defector with an American background who understood Russian, when a far simpler alternative existed. Here are those two questions again: Does Jim accept that someone can be impersonated without the use of doppelgangers? What were the reasons for setting up a complex long-term impersonation project involving two pairs of doppelgangers when there was no need to do so?

John Butler writes: Go on, then. Explain to us what the relevance is of Phil Willis and his extra-long leg being in the street and darting in front of Marie Muchmore. If John is trying to prove that the Muchmore film was altered, one of the many things he needs to show is that whoever is supposed to have altered the film actually had access to it. Is Phil Willis evidence for this? If not, what evidence does John actually have that the film was in the possession of whoever is supposed to have altered it? The Muchmore film was in the possession of UPI from 25 November. The authorities, in the form of the FBI, first became aware of the film in February 1964. UPI sent the FBI a copy of the film shortly after that, but kept the original for themselves. Has John looked into the ownership of the Muchmore film beyond the account given by Richard Trask? If he has, what has he found? If he hasn't found anything, we have no evidence that the authorities, or the lizard people, or creatures from outer space, ever had access to the Muchmore film. If none of these groups ever had access to the film, they can't have altered it, can they?

I'm not sure what point Jim was trying to make by including a screen shot of Jonathan's comment, or even why he thinks that comment is significant. Did he mistakenly think the word 'always' applied to the impersonations? Personally, I don't believe Oswald was 'always' impersonated, and I assume Jonathan doesn't believe that either. As Jonathan pointed out in that comment, it's possible to believe that Oswald may have been impersonated without also believing in Jim's ridiculous notion of a long-term double-doppelganger project that could never have been implemented. Any impersonations would have been ad hoc incidents. Impersonations do not require doppelgangers. Surely even Jim accepts this. Or does he? Perhaps he could clarify this for us. When he has answered that question, Jim could take this opportunity to fill in the missing part of his double-doppelganger theory. Why, in Jim's opinion, did those masterminds decide to set up a scheme that involved doppelgangers? Why recruit a fake Oswald and a fake Marguerite when a much easier, cheaper, and more obvious solution was available? I've asked Jim to explain this on several threads over the past year or two. Sadly, no explanation has been forthcoming, which suggests that there isn't one. But if Jim believes that his imaginary masterminds existed, he must believe that they had good reasons for doing what Jim claims they did. He should be able to tell us what those reasons are. Here are the two questions for Jim: Do you accept that someone can be impersonated without the use of doppelgangers? What were the reasons for setting up a complex long-term impersonation project involving two pairs of doppelgangers when there was no need to do so?

Sandy Larsen writes: Indeed. I hope that if frames weren't removed, as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates, we would want to know that too. John Butler writes: It's true that we shouldn't expect witnesses to report everything they see. It's also true that witnesses would be inclined to report events that seem important to them, and not inclined to report events that don't seem important to them. It's also the case that witnesses sometimes exaggerate, and sometimes mention things that they didn't actually see. It's reasonable to assume that a car stop would be more noteworthy than a drastic slowing down, and that a drastic slowing down would be more noteworthy than a slight slowing down. What we find is that the range of witness statements is consistent with a slight slowing down, and inconsistent with a stop or a drastic slowing down. The balance of the witness evidence matches what the home movies show. The default position is that the Muchmore film is unaltered. My position is that until someone proves otherwise, we are obliged to believe that the film is unaltered. In the case of the Muchmore film, among the many things that need to be demonstrated is that whoever is supposed to have altered the film actually had access to it. I'm not aware of any evidence that the authorities (or the lizard people, or aliens from outer space) ever had access to the original film.

John also writes: No. There were claimed to be 59 witnesses to the car stop. When you look at what they actually said, it turns out that far fewer than 59 people claimed that the car stopped. Most of them claimed that the car merely slowed down, just as all three home movies show. Although 59 witnesses were originally cited, Douglas Horne thinks there were more than that. It's an interesting claim, because it shows us something about Horne's mentality. Here's what Horne wrote: The original claim mentioned 59 witnesses, not "80+", but the larger the number, the weaker Horne's case becomes. He claims that 16 out of 80+ witnesses reported that the car stopped, and that this is "simple proof" that the film was altered. But 16 out of 80+ implies that more than 64 witnesses reported that the car didn't stop, and only slowed down. The proportion of car-stop to non-car-stop witnesses is 16:64, if we accept Horne's figures. That's 1:4, one car-stop witness for every four non-car-stop witnesses. If the numbers prove anything, it's that the car didn't stop. On the one hand, we have 16 witnesses claiming that the car stopped. Against that, we have more than 64 witnesses claiming that the car didn't stop, and we also have three home movies which show that the car didn't stop. Either the majority of the witnesses were mistaken and all three home movies were faked, or a minority of the witnesses were mistaken and all three movies were authentic. It's obvious that the car didn't stop. Horne's own numbers prove exactly the opposite of what Horne is claiming. What made him make such an illogical claim? It must be his blind, fixed belief that the film was altered. If the facts contradict his belief, well, the facts must be wrong. I originally made this point at: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2523p50-peculiarity-of-frame-303#38463 I don't have the source of Horne's claim to hand, but it's probably mentioned earlier in that ROKC thread.