Jeremy Bojczuk

What point is David Lifton trying to make here? As far as I can tell, his argument goes something like this: The presidential limousine pulled over to the left and stopped at the time of the shooting, as several witnesses claimed. The Zapruder film was altered to conceal this incriminating stop. The altered film was later placed in the National Archives. Governor and Mrs Connally were shown this film three days after the assassination. Governor Connally was interviewed two days after that. In that interview, Governor Connally mentioned that he had been struck by a bullet after President Kennedy had already been struck. And ... what, exactly? What's the connection between Connally's interview and the Zapruder film allegedly having been altered to remove the alleged car stop? To put it another way, what exactly is there in Connally's interview that can be attributed to his having seen the film? Is Lifton still pushing his old claim that Connally was shot from the front? Is that what he's getting at? If he is, then: he must be the only person who believes it, and so what? How does the supposed car stop, and its absence in the photographic record, relate to a shot from the front? Alternatively, is Lifton claiming that Connally was actually hit not by the second bullet, as Connally stated, but by the first bullet? If that's it, how does that relate to the supposed car stop? Or is Lifton claiming both of these things, as a sort of bizarro single-bullet theory? Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet, which was fired from the front! Is that it? Maybe it has something to do with gunmen hiding in fake trees on the grassy knoll. A bullet was fired from among those fake trees; it hit Connally in the front; then it hit Kennedy in the front. And then a presidential body-snatching squad abducted Kennedy and Connally and altered their wounds to make it look as though the bullet had been fired from behind. Am I getting warmer? If he isn't still pushing the claim that Connally was shot from the front, and if he isn't pushing the single-bullet theory in one form or another, and if he is no longer claiming that there were gunmen hiding in fake trees on the grassy knoll, what point is David Lifton actually trying to make?

I trust that the next time Jim Hargrove brings up the subject of James Wilcott's 'Oswald project' in the context of a 'Harvey and Lee' discussion, he will include a caveat like this: "James Wilcott specifically contradicted three essential elements of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory. If James Wilcott's 'Oswald project' existed, the 'Harvey and Lee' theory's double-doppelganger scheme did not, and vice versa." After all, Jim wouldn't want to give people the wrong impression about Wilcott, would he?

John Butler writes: There are several facts that support my claim: Fact no.1: According to the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, there was a plan in the late 1940s or early 1950s to produce a false defector who (a) would possess a plausible American background and (b) would be able to understand the Russian that would be spoken around him. Fact no.2: According to the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, this false defector would be activated no earlier than the late 1950s, several years after the hypothetical plan was hypothetically being considered. Fact no.3: In the late 1940s or early 1950s, when this hypothetical plan was hypothetically being considered, there were several million people in the US military at any one time. Fact no.4: Of these millions of servicemen (and women), there must have been thousands who would have had (a) a genuine American background and (b) an above-average aptitude for learning languages that would allow him (or her) to acquire a sufficient understanding of Russian by the time he (or she) was sent to Moscow several years later. Fact no.5: According to the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, the planners would have worked out the best way to achieve their goal. Those are the facts. Obviously, in the case of Facts nos.1, 2, and 5, the facts are only that the 'Harvey and Lee' theory claims these things. The notion that these things actually happened is speculation. Now for some more speculation. According to the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, the planners decided that the best way to achieve their goal was to: Recruit an American, English-speaking boy and his American, English-speaking mother. Recruit an eastern European, Russian-speaking boy, who was unrelated to the American boy, specifically for his knowledge of Russian. Recruit a woman who was virtually identical to the American boy's mother, despite being unrelated to her or to either of the boys, to act as a surrogate mother. Maintain the doppelganger Oswald and the doppelganger mother, as well as the real Oswald and the real mother, for several years. Hope that when those several years had passed, and the two boys had grown up, they too would turn out to be virtually identical. Allow the Russian-speaking boy, while growing up in the US, to forget most or all of his Russian, the very skill for which he had been recruited in the first place, so that he would be obliged to teach himself Russian. All of the speculation I've mentioned is from the 'Harvey and Lee' theory. Here is the question I've been trying to get someone to answer. I asked how we get from one item of 'Harvey and Lee' speculation: (i) a false defector was being groomed no later than the early 1950s to another item of 'Harvey and Lee' speculation: (ii) the planners implemented a double-doppelganger scheme Given the incontrovertible fact that plenty of (real-life) suitable candidates for the role of false defector existed, why would the (speculative) 'Harvey and Lee' planners decide instead to implement the (speculative, and vastly more complicated) 'Harvey and Lee' double-doppelganger scheme? If that isn't clear enough, try thinking about it in terms of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine. What piece of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory describes the planners' intentions? One essential item of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory seems to be missing. As far as I'm aware: John Armstrong doesn't mention it in his book. Jim Hargrove or the other 'Harvey and Lee' proponents haven't mentioned it in an online discussion. I'll be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong and someone can provide either a page reference or a link. If the hypothetical planners were real, and not speculative, they must have had a good reason for deciding to implement their speculative scheme, mustn't they? What, according to the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, was that reason?

Jim Hargrove has again brought up James Wilcott's use of the phrase 'Oswald project' to justify the 'Harvey and Lee' theory. Wilcott's notion of an 'Oswald project' specifically contradicted the 'Harvey and Lee' theory in several important respects: Wilcott's Oswald was one person, not two. Wilcott's Oswald did not have a doppelganger, and Wilcott's Oswald's mother did not have a doppelganger. Wilcott's Oswald was an English-speaking American, born and brought up in the USA, not a native Russian-speaking eastern Eurpean refugee. Wilcott claimed that Oswald was recruited by the CIA while in the Marines, not several years earlier while still a child. Those are the three central elements of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, and they are all contradicted by James Wilcott. You can argue about whether or not Wilcott's 'Oswald project' actually existed, but you can't use it to try and prop up a bizarre double-doppelganger scheme that could never have happened. Jim really ought to stop misrepresenting Wilcott. His error has been pointed out to him at least once before. The 'simple misunderstanding' excuse might work the first couple of times, but it won't work if Jim tries that trick again.

Andrew Prutsok writes: This is the comment of mine that Andrew is referring to: Andrew seems to have misunderstood what I meant, though I'm not sure how he managed it. I'll try again: If someone provides evidence that Edwin Ekdahl had some sort of connection to US intelligence, that by itself does not allow us to conclude that he was involved in a 'Harvey and Lee'-like scheme. That's because it is possible for Ekdahl, or anyone else, to be connected to US intelligence without being part of any scheme involving two pairs of doppelgangers. In the real world, plenty of people have intelligence connections, and none of them have ever been involved in an incoherent double-doppelganger scheme, for the simple reason that such a scheme could never have been implemented. Of course, if someone were to produce evidence that can only be interpreted as showing that Ekdahl was involved in such a scheme, that would be a different matter. But as things stand, no-one has even produced any evidence to support the speculation that Ekdahl had any intelligence connections, let alone that he played a part in a bizarre fantasy involving imaginary doppelgangers.

It's hard work, getting a straight answer out of Jim Hargrove sometimes, isn't it? He might want to check out this thread, as might John Kowalski: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27236-for-messrs-hargrove-zartman-kowalski-et-al/ Once Jim has answered Robert Charles-Dunne's reasonable question, perhaps he could turn his attention to mine. My question is very simple, and appears to have only one possible answer: Question: Why would the 'Harvey and Lee' masterminds go to all the trouble and expense of setting up a double-doppelganger project when they could have achieved their goal much more easily, by recruiting an American serviceman and getting him to learn Russian? Answer: They wouldn't. The masterminds had such a straightforward and obvious alternative that the idea of setting up a long-term double-doppelganger project would never even have occurred to them. I'm sure that everyone, even Jim, understands that this is the only possible answer to that question. And I'm sure everyone understands why Jim won't answer the question. Let's give him one more chance, shall we? Question: Why would the 'Harvey and Lee' masterminds go to all the trouble and expense of setting up a double-doppelganger project when they could have achieved their goal much more easily, by recruiting an American serviceman and getting him to learn Russian? Answer:

While I admire Jamey Flanagan's wide-eyed enthusiasm, he needs to balance this with a bit of skeptical questioning. The example he gives, of an Oswald doppelganger arrested in the Texas Theater, was shown a couple of years ago to have been nothing of the sort. Only one person was arrested: the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/?do=findComment&comment=407170 Even Jim Hargrove, when he gets in trouble, no longer uses this example as one of his "look over there!" copy-and-paste distraction exercises. As Robert points out, there are plenty of threads available for discussion of individual 'Harvey and Lee' talking points. You can find them by using the search function. This thread is about trying to get an answer to the claim that Edwin Ekdahl had a connection to US intelligence. It's an interesting claim. It wouldn't be impossible for Ekdahl to have had such a connection, which might have some bearing on the biography of the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald. It might shed some light on why Oswald was chosen to take the rap for the assassination. But it won't shed any light on a ludicrous long-term double-doppelganger scheme that could never have happened. We've seen that Denny Zartman hasn't found any evidence to support this claim. We haven't yet heard from John Kowalski or Jim Hargrove. If anyone sees them around, could you let them know that their input would be appreciated, if only to acknowledge publicly that they have no evidence? As things stand, the notion that Ekdahl had intelligence connections is just unsupported speculation.

John Butler writes: Of course not. Almost no-one believes that. We know that the 'Harvey and Lee' double-doppelganger project did not exist. We also know that it cannot have existed, in principle. The supposed purpose of the project was to produce a false defector who understood Russian and who had a plausible American background. There was a blindingly obvious way to do this: simply recruit one genuine American and get him to learn Russian. There would have been more than enough suitable candidates, and more than enough time for the candidate to learn Russian to the required level. No-one would have even considered setting up a project involving two pairs of doppelgangers. There was no 'Harvey and Lee' project. It could never have happened. Has Jim acknowledged this fact by correcting the inaccurate passage in his website yet?

A few posts ago, I replied to Jim Hargrove's light-hearted suggestion that his imaginary Oswald doppelganger and his imaginary Marguerite doppelganger could have existed after all because Mata Hari used a stage double, and a stage double is a bit like a doppelganger, when you think about it. In that reply, I stated that: Looking back over last year's debate about whether or not the hypothetical Oswald doppelganger was a native speaker of Russian, it appears that an official verdict had in fact been reached on this point of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine. The hypothetical doppelganger who defected to the Soviet Union sort of was a native speaker, and sort of wasn't a native speaker. It worked like this: The doppelganger had been a native speaker when he was a child in Hungary (let's ignore for now the assumption that a Hungarian would have learned Russian as a native language). But because the doppelganger moved to the US when he was still a child, he ended up forgetting a good deal of his Russian. By the time he was in the Marines, waiting for his defection to be given the go-ahead, he had become essentially a non-native speaker. That explains why he had to teach himself Russian, just as a non-native speaker would have had to do. That also explains why he did poorly in a fairly elementary Russian test, just as a non-native speaker might have done. Although he was a native speaker in theory, he was a non-native speaker in practice. If I've misunderstood this aspect of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, I'd be grateful if any of the theory's remaining proponents could correct me. The problem is, the theory requires those hypothetical masterminds to have been remarkably incompetent: They recruited the sort-of-but-not-really native Russian-speaking doppelganger specifically for his knowledge of Russian. They had control of him from an early age until he defected. Yet they allowed him to forget much of his Russian, the very skill for which they had recruited him in the first place. It makes you wonder why they bothered, doesn't it? The 'Harvey and Lee' theory really is an incoherent, poorly thought-out mess. The obvious question remains unanswered. Why would the 'Harvey and Lee' masterminds go to all the trouble and expense of setting up a double-doppelganger project when they could have achieved their goal much more easily? Why didn't they just recruit a genuine American serviceman and get him to learn Russian? Any ideas?

Has Jim got around to updating his website yet? As I pointed out a few posts ago, this is the sentence Jim needs to change: This is what it should read: HARVEY was an over-qualified, far from ideal candidate to "defect" to the Soviet Union and work as an undercover agent who secretly understood Russian, because HARVEY was a native speaker of Russian and you don't need to be a native speaker to secretly understand the language that is being spoken around you. The whole HARVEY and LEE project was unnecessary. US intelligence could have saved all the trouble and expense of a decade-long project by simply identifying an American with a knack for languages, who would work as an undercover agent who secretly understood Russian.

Denny Zartman writes: That is good to know, but it doesn't mean that Denny should not reply to Robert's perfectly reasonable question. The digital equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la la" is a good way to insulate yourself from uncomfortable facts and opinions. It's a poor way to reach a proper judgement about contentious subjects. Personally, there's plenty of evidence that would satisfy me. I'd guess the same goes for Robert, Tracy, Jonathan, and all the other members who are unsatisfied by the evidence that has been presented up to now. When I discussed this with Denny a couple of weeks ago, I explained to him why the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is, in my opinion, dead and buried: To illustrate my claim, I then gave Denny some links to threads on which particular 'Harvey and Lee' talking points had been examined in detail. Those talking points have been abandoned by 'Harvey and Lee' proponents. The proponents evidently accept that those elements of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory are either poorly supported by the evidence or plainly contradicted by the evidence. Plenty of 'Harvey and Lee' talking points have been discussed, and most of them have been discussed over and over again. Hardly anyone has been persuaded by any of them. I told Denny, "If you or anyone else finds something the critics have missed, please mention it on the appropriate thread." As far as I can tell, Denny has not found anything that the critics have missed. Following that, I showed Denny why the double-doppelganger scheme would never have been implemented. If the CIA (or whoever) wanted to produce a false defector who understood Russian and had a plausible American background, they had a far easier and more obvious solution than setting up a long-term double-doppelganger project. Again, Denny doesn't seem to have found anything that contradicts the argument I made, so I'd guess he agrees with me about that, at least. To return to the Ekdahl question: if Denny thinks there may be something in the suggestion that Edwin Ekdahl had some sort of intelligence connection, that's fine with me. Plenty of people in the immediate post-war period had intelligence connections. Even if Ekdahl was one of them, that by itself wouldn't imply that he was playing a part in a ludicrously improbable top-secret double-doppelganger project. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that Ekdahl had such a connection, if anyone can produce evidence that's strong enough to justify that claim. But, as Robert has been pointing out, the people who are making the claim haven't yet produced any evidence at all. The claim is currently just speculation. It's not unreasonable to ask the 'Harvey and Lee' proponents to either produce some evidence or acknowledge that it is pure speculation.

Just a gentle reminder to Jim Hargrove that there are a couple of questions he hasn't yet answered. No rush, but it would be nice to know what he has to say on these topics. The first question was from Robert Charles-Dunne, who asked Jim nearly a week ago to provide evidence to support Jim's suggestion that Edwin Ekdahl had some sort of involvement in intelligence activities: The second question was from me, and was to do with a fundamental aspect of the double-doppelganger theory: Again, it's a straight question, and it shouldn't be difficult for Jim to provide a straight answer. Jim has been promoting this theory for over 20 years, so he must be able to tell us why the masterminds would have decided to recruit a couple of long-term doppelgangers when there was no need to do so.

John Butler writes: This is a promising line of research. As far as I'm aware, other 'Harvey and Lee' enthusiasts have been reluctant to identify the specific facial features which differentiated Harvey the puny Hungarian from Lee the beefy American (or was it the other way round? I can never remember). It might go something like this: Hungarian Harvey: receding hairline, narrower nose, longer ear-lobes, squarer chin, normal-sized head. American Lee: non-receding hairline, wider nose, shorter ear-lobes, more pointed chin, 13-inch head. Of course, that's just an example. There must be many more of these subtle differences which allow the attentive viewer to distinguish between the two doppelgangers. Mr Butler claimed some time ago that there were three Oswald doppelgangers. More recently, I'm told, he has suggested the possibility of as many as four. I don't know whether there has been any further increase, but however many doppelganger Oswalds there were, each must have had his own set of distinguishing features. It would be useful to have a definitive account of what those features were. Would Mr Butler be able to take a look at the mugshot montage on page 48 of this thread and tell us which doppelganger is depicted in each photo, based solely on their physical characteristics? He can leave out the non-doppelganger Mexico City photos, obviously, unless he identifies those characters as either of his extra doppelgangers. Then he could turn his attention to the two Marguerites. Or three Marguerites, or four, since each Oswald doppelganger must have had a doppelganger mother named Marguerite. On the subject of Marguerite doppelgangers and 'Harvey and Lee' research methods, John Kowalski might want to check out Greg Parker's comment about Mr Kowalski's use of wishful thinking and jumping to conclusions as a research method: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2419p25-the-mullberry-bush#36955

Now, onto Jim Hargrove's comments. Impostors versus Doppelgangers The de la Guardia twins: They are the closest Jim gets to actual doppelgangers, but they weren't the result of a decade-long project involving unrelated boys who grew up to look virtually identical or unrelated mothers who were already virtually identical. A web search (not foolproof, I know) reveals no evidence that they were defectors. Konon Molodiy: Neither he nor his mother had a doppelganger. He was not involved in a decade-long project involving improbably close physical resemblances with unrelated boys or their mothers. He was not a defector. Michael Ross: He too did not have a doppelganger, was not a defector, and was not involved in a decade-long project involving improbably close physical resemblances with unrelated boys or their mothers. Mata Hari: You've got to be kidding! Needless to say, Mata Hari did not have a doppelganger, was not a defector, and was not involved in a decade-long project involving improbably close physical resemblences with unrelated boys (or girls) or their mothers. Mata Hari! Of this meagre list, those who used imposture did so in order to blend in and avoid the attention of the authorities they were acting against, which is precisely what the 'Harvey and Lee' theory's false defector could not have done, what with having been a defector and all. Comparing Oswald to Mata Hari of all people sounds particularly desperate, although it does have some comic value. I can just about visualise Oswald using his powerful seductive skills, fluttering his eyelids and causing stone-faced Soviet officials to go weak at the knees, thereby divulging that year's top-secret tractor production quotas. More importantly, Jim is missing the point. The question he needs to answer is not: are there any strong similarities between the 'Harvey and Lee' defector scheme and real-life spies? (Answer: no.) The question is: why would the masterminds have preferred a complex and obscure double-doppelganger scheme over a straightforward and obvious scheme? To put it another way: Why use two pairs of doppelgangers when you don't need any? Deniability Unfortunately, there was nothing to deny. If Jim has anything new to say on the subject of the Bolton Ford non-incident, he could do so by continuing the debate on either of these threads: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/page/59/?tab=comments#comment-359047 https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1408-the-bolton-ford-incident To contribute to the latter thread, Jim will need to accept the longstanding invitation to become a member of that forum. If he's sure of his case, he will be eager to accept the invitation. Russian Language Skills Why could the genuine American counterpart not have had the same skills as the eastern European refugee doppelganger? If, as 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine claims, the masterminds began their planning no later than the early 1950s, they would have had several years in which to get their candidate up to speed in Russian. A genuine American serviceman with a knack for languages would have had more than enough time to learn Russian to the necessary standard: the ability to understand what was being said around him. If, as 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine claims, the Hungarian refugee doppelganger popped up in New York at the age of 12, having spent a few years learning English to a high level, he must have left Hungary several years earlier. Just like the genuine American serviceman, he too would have needed to get up to speed in Russian. And that's assuming that the junior future doppelganger would actually have learned any Russian in Hungary, which is far from certain. So, again, why add all the unnecessary complication? Why use two pairs of doppelgangers when you don't need any? Why not just use a genuine American? What was the thinking behind the masterminds' decision to set up a double-doppelganger scheme when they would have had a perfectly straightforward alternative? Then Jim returns to the confused 'Harvey and Lee' account of the real-life Lee Harvey Oswald's Russian skills. When we discussed this on several threads last year, the relevant doppelganger was claimed to be a native speaker one day, and a non-native speaker the next day. For example: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26571-oswalds-language-abilities-and-evidence-related-to-his-soviet-soujourn/?do=findComment&comment=426981 It's Monday today, but Jim wrote his comment on Saturday, so that must mean the doppelganger was a ... oh, I can't be bothered to work it out. Has a definitive verdict been reached yet? Not that it matters, because in either case Jim would still need to explain why the masterminds would have gone for the complicated, obscure option over the simple, obvious option. To make it easier for Jim to answer my question, I'll break it into two parts. If the doppelganger defector was a native speaker of Russian, he would have been required to disguise his authentic Russian accent, in order to pass himself off as a genuine American. So why not just use a genuine American instead? If the doppelganger defector was not a native speaker of Russian, what advantage was there in sending him rather than a genuine American? Why not just use a genuine American? In each hypothetical scenario, what would the masterminds' thought processes have been? Finally Mata Hari! Good grief!

John also writes: If the presence of a Russian speaker would be useful, why create all the complication of a long-term double-doppelganger scheme, when you could just get an American serviceman to learn Russian? Again, John doesn't seem to be answering the question I raised. If the hypothetical US masterminds wanted to send over a false defector who understood Russian, why would they not do it in the most obvious way, by recruiting an American and getting him to learn Russian? What would the masterminds' thought process have been when they decided instead to set up the absurdly complex double-doppelganger scheme?

I'll deal with John Butler's points today, and Jim Hargrove's tomorrow. In the meantime, the 'Harvey and Lee' aficionados might like to explain this item of evidence: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2423-can-h-l-explain-this John writes: Firstly, that scenario didn't happen. The Soviets didn't thoroughly question Oswald by using drugs or torture. As far as I can recall, none of the other US defectors around that time were tortured on entering the USSR either. Secondly, I'm genuinely confused. What point is John getting at, exactly? He's supposed to be justifying the vast complexity of the long-term double-doppelganger scheme, but he seems to be pointing out another of the scheme's weaknesses. If the US masterminds thought the Soviets were likely to torture the false defector to reveal "the truth" about him, surely the masterminds would have been much better off using a genuine American with a genuine American background, rather than an eastern European doppelganger whose claimed American background was false. It's a central point of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine, as I understand it, that the false defector should appear to the Soviets to have a genuine American background. So why not just use a genuine American? What would be the benefit of the extra complication of using an eastern European boy who magically grew up to resemble an unrelated American boy? Armstrong and White's double-doppelganger scheme was very poorly thought out. Correct!

I asked John Butler: John replied: How? I'm not sure about that. Off-hand, I can think of one American defector who wasn't heavily interrogated by the Soviets. What was the chap's name ... let me think ... began with an 'O' ... ah yes ... Oswald. If my understanding of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is correct, the defector's story was that he was a genuine American. The most foolproof way of making the defector's 'genuine American' story convincing would be to give the role to a genuine American, surely? There were millions of suitable candidates. No-one would even have thought of using an eastern European doppelganger. 'The defector's story would need to be convincing' is actually an argument against the double-doppelganger theory, not for it! Such knowledge would be based on the defector's time in the Marines. Whether or not he was a doppelganger would make no difference. So why make things vastly more complicated by using a doppelganger? Again, the risk would be the same for a genuine American and an eastern European doppelganger. What's the advantage of using a doppelganger? OK then. It's amazing that the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is so poorly thought-out, yet for more than two decades its proponents never seemed to notice this gaping hole in it. As far as I can tell, John Armstrong never dealt with the problem in his book, and his ever-diminishing bunch of acolytes never dealt with it in all the years they have been spreading the word on this forum and elsewhere. The double-doppelganger scheme is so preposterously complicated and unlikely, compared to the alternative, that it would never even have occurred to anyone who wanted to send a false defector to the Soviet Union.

John Butler writes: As one of those "anti-Harvey and Lee warriors", I wonder if John would like to persuade me of my error, by clearing up what appears to be a serious problem with his theory. It's a bit more fundamental than teeth and ear-lobes. It's about whether the double-doppelganger scheme could actually have been set up in the first place. Why would those CIA guys have decided to set up a long-term project involving two virtually identical Oswalds and two virtually identical Marguerites, when they would have had a far simpler way to achieve their goal of producing a false defector who understood Russian and had a plausible American background? What was their reason for choosing the very complex scheme over the very simple scheme? If they did set up a long-term double-doppelganger project, they must have had a good reason for doing so, mustn't they? But what was that reason? There was no reason, was there?

There seems to be no conceivable reason for those hypothetical 'Harvey and Lee' masterminds to have set up a long-term double-doppelganger scheme, when they had a perfectly good alternative. I can't think of a reason. John Kowalski can't think of a reason. Denny Zartman can't think of a reason. Robert Charles-Dunne, Jonathan Cohen, Tracy Parnell, Bernie Laverick and Karl Kinaski can't think of a reason. Greg Parker, Alex Wilson and the rest of the gang at the ROKC forum can't think of a reason. Even John Butler can't think of a reason. I'm beginning to suspect that no reason ever existed for the hypothetical decision to set up that hypothetical double-doppelganger scheme. But if the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is correct, those hypothetical masterminds must have had a good reason for making their decision. There appears to be just one fully paid-up member of the 'Harvey and Lee' fan club still standing. Let's ask him, shall we, and see what he has to say? Jim Hargrove has apparently spent more than twenty years promoting the double-doppelganger theory that was developed by John Armstrong and Jack 'the moon landings were faked' White. If there's one person who must have the answer to the mystery, it will be Jim. Jim, In your studies of the 'Harvey and Lee' concept over the last two decades or more, you must have given some thought to the question of exactly why a bunch of Bad Guy masterminds would have decided to set up a long-term scheme involving two pairs of doppelgangers. The 'Harvey and Lee' theory tells us that the purpose of the scheme was to produce a false defector who understood Russian and possessed a plausible American background. We know that these masterminds, if they existed, would have had an obvious, straightforward solution available to them. All they had to do was: Choose one American from the 2.5 million or more who were in the military at any one time in the early 1950s. Allow him to learn Russian over several years. Yet, according to you, those masterminds instead decided to: Locate one American boy and his American mother. Locate one eastern European boy, either a Hungarian refugee or a Russian World War Two orphan, who was unrelated to the American boy. Locate a woman who looked virtually identical to the American boy's mother despite being unrelated to her, to act as the eastern European boy's mother. Have the eastern European boy impersonate the American boy over several years. Have the surrogate mother impersonate the American boy's mother over several years. Hope that at the end of this process, the two unrelated boys would end up looking virtually identical. If the 'Harvey and Lee' double-doppelganger scheme actually happened, the Bad Guy masterminds who devised it must have had a convincing and credible reason for preferring that very complex scheme over the very simple and obvious scheme I mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, no-one seems able to work out what that reason might have been. What, in your expert opinion, was the convincing and credible reason that led the masterminds to prefer the complex scheme over the simple scheme? Having studied and promoted the theory for more than 20 years, you must have worked out an answer to this question. What would have been the reasoning process that led to their decision?

Jim Hargrove writes: Good grief, Jim! Evidently, 200 posts is what it takes to prise anything resembling a straight answer from Jim about John Armstrong's blatant and apparently dishonest misrepresentation of the mastoidectomy evidence which debunked Armstrong's theory two decades before he published his book. I'm happy to discuss the mastoidectomy again if Jim wants to, but I suspect he doesn't. Any readers who are interested can follow the last debate from here: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26529-was-it-really-just-a-mole-hunt-about-oswald/?do=findComment&comment=422390 On the contrary, we have talked about that evidence here. We have talked about it, over and over again, in many threads on this very forum. The mastoidectomy, the Stripling witnesses, the Texas Theater arrest, and pretty much every other notable aspect of Jim's beloved (and internally incoherent) double-doppelganger theory have been done to death. If Jim has anything new to say about any of those topics, he is welcome to do so on the appropriate thread. Unfortunately, he doesn't appear to have anything new to say. There is, however, one aspect of his theory on which I would welcome Jim's input. I'll come to it shortly. We'll see how many posts it takes before we get a straight answer from Jim about this one. Robert Charles-Dunne asks Jim: Good grief, Robert! Don't you realise that using words such as 'nonsense' to describe the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense* is likely to genuinely offend those delicate souls who are on the look-out for things to complain about to the moderators? * I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.

Denny Zartman writes: It's all to do with the intended goal. If your goal is to produce a cartoon-like sequence of actions, the rational choice is to use animators. If your goal is to produce a realistic-looking sequence, the rational choice is to use actors. In the early 1950s, according to the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, a bunch of hypothetical Bad Guys set themselves a goal: to produce a false defector several years later who understood Russian and had a plausible American background. There would have been an obvious and rational way to achieve that goal: recruit one of the millions of American servicemen who had a genuine American background, and get him to learn Russian to the required level. There would have been no shortage of suitable candidates, and plenty of time for the chosen candidate to get up to speed in Russian. But for some reason, if the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is correct, the Bad Guys decided not to take advantage of this straightforward and obvious solution. Instead, we are told, they decided to go for a far more convoluted solution, one so obscure that it would surely never even have occurred to them, involving two pairs of doppelgangers and improbable resemblances between two pairs of unrelated people. If the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is correct, those Bad Guys must have had a good reason for deciding to implement such a convoluted and not at all obvious solution, rather than the very straightforward and very obvious solution I've described. What, according to the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, was the Bad Guys' reason for making such an irrational-looking decision? This question does not seem to have been addressed, or even considered, by any 'Harvey and Lee' believer during the two decades or more that their theory has been promoted. In the absence of a credible answer, the theory is internally incoherent. If the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is not internally incoherent, the Bad Guys must have had a good reason for making their decision. What was that reason?

John Butler writes: That doesn't answer my question. I wasn't asking whether one twin could do something in New York while the other twin would provide him with an alibi in 'Los' Vegas. I was asking about the reasoning that the hypothetical masterminds must have used when they decided to set up their hypothetical long-term double-doppelganger scheme. The 'Harvey and Lee' folk allege that these hypothetical masterminds needed to create a false defector who understood Russian and had a plausible American background. The hypothetical masterminds had two ways to do this: an obvious, straightforward way and an obscure, complex way. Why did they decide to go for the obscure, complex solution? What would have been the thinking behind their decision?

John Butler writes: For the record, I've never communicated privately with Robert, Jonathan, Tracy, Bernie, Mark, or any of the other "H & L detractors" who haven't yet been banned from this forum. As far as I'm aware, they are all separate people and they are all real: none of them is a Russian-speaking Hungarian refugee doppelganger with sloping shoulders and a 13-inch head. Also for the record and as far as I'm aware, none of us has got together and tried to suppress criticism by persistently complaining to the moderators. John, Have you had a chance to refine your thinking on the matter I raised earlier? I'm curious to see what relevance Frank Wisner has to the question I asked. By the way, you can brush up your knowledge of Wisner and his émigrés at https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2419-the-mullberry-bush#36830. Here's a reminder of the question you and the other 'Harvey and Lee' folk have so far been unable or unwilling to answer: If those hypothetical masterminds actually existed, and if they really did set up a long-term double-doppelganger scheme, they must have decided that that scheme, despite being very complicated, was more suited to their needs than the very straightforward alternative I described earlier. Why, in your opinion, did they choose the double-doppelganger scheme rather than the other one? I'd be interested to learn your view of this. Being a 'Harvey and Lee' enthusiast, you must have considered the question. What conclusion dd you come to? What reasoning would have led those hypothetical masterminds to make that decision?

Jonathan is correct. I'm not sure what point John Butler was trying to make, but his post certainly does not answer my question. Perhaps he could have another go, and explain exactly what he was getting at. Here's the problem that the 'Harvey and Lee' folks have so far failed to solve: The hypothetical masterminds behind the hypothetical 'Harvey and Lee' scheme needed to come up with a false defector who understood Russian and had a convincing American background. What made them decide to implement a complicated and implausible long-term scheme involving two unrelated boys who they hoped would grow up to become virtually identical, and two unrelated women who already happened to be virtually identical, when a far more straightforward alternative was available? What process of reasoning would have led them to that decision?

Here's a challenge for the few remaining 'Harvey and Lee' enthusiasts. Most aspects of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory have been debated over and over again. The same topics have been promoted ad nauseam* by the theory's promoters, and criticised repeatedly by its critics: the Stripling witnesses, the arrest in the Texas Theater, the 13-inch head, and so on. But there is one fundamental aspect that doesn't seem to have been described adequately, if at all, by the theory's promoters. It's the thinking behind the hypothetical long-term double-doppelganger scheme. We have been told that the purpose of the scheme was to produce a false defector to the Soviet Union. Proponents of the theory seem to be agreed that there were two requirements for this defector: Firstly, language. He needed to be able to understand the Russian that would be spoken around him in the Soviet Union, but he did not need to be a native speaker with an authentic Russian accent, because this would have given the game away. Secondly, background. He needed to possess a plausible background as a genuine American, and preferably as a genuine American serviceman. We have also been told that the hypothetical scheme was hypothetically set up no later than the early 1950s. The defection of the real-life, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald occurred in 1959. The hypothetical masterminds behind the hypothetical double-doppelganger scheme thus had several years in which to hypothetically cultivate their hypothetical doppelgangers. The hypothetical masterminds knew what their ultimate goal was, and they knew that they had plenty of time in which to achieve that goal. For some reason, the hypothetical masterminds decided that the best way to achieve their goal was to set up a long-term scheme involving two unrelated boys, who grew up to look virtually identical, with two unrelated, yet also virtually identical, mothers. As far as I'm aware, the reason for that decision has not yet been explained by the 'Harvey and Lee' theory's proponents. An important part of the 'Harvey and Lee' argument is missing. How did the hypothetical masterminds decide that a double-doppelganger scheme was the best solution to their problem? In other words, the 'Harvey and Lee' theorists need to explain how, if the masterminds started out with this goal: (a) We need a defector with an American background who can understand Russian! they ended up with this decision: (b) We'll recruit two unrelated boys from different continents who will be native speakers of two different languages! And we'll recruit the actual mother of one of those boys and another woman who will act as the mother of the other boy! And we will ensure that this other woman, despite being unrelated to the first woman, is virtually identical to her! And we will hope that when the two boys grow up several years later they too will look virtually identical! What was the thinking behind their decision? How did they get from (a) to (b)? There doesn't appear to be any credible way in which those hypothetical masterminds would have reached that decision. Or is there? The question must have occurred to the 'Harvey and Lee' proponents, so they should have a ready answer for us. Over to you, boys! What's the answer? How did the hypothetical masterminds come up with that decision? You see, the problem is that if those hypothetical masterminds really did want to produce such a defector, they had a far easier way to do so. All they had to do was: look at the 2.5 million or more Americans who were in the military in the early 1950s; select one genuine American serviceman with an above-average talent for languages; and allow him to learn Russian for several years. There would have been more than enough suitable candidates for the role of American-defector-who-understood-Russian. There would have been more than enough time for a motivated person to learn Russian to the necessary level. This scheme would have produced the desired result, and would have had several advantages over the 'Harvey and Lee' scheme: Result: one hypothetical defector! Amount of fuss, expense and complication: not much! Number of doppelganger Oswalds required: none! Number of doppelganger Marguerites required: none! Why did the hypothetical masterminds instead go for the vastly more complicated and implausible hypothetical double-doppelganger scheme when they had such an obvious solution to their hypothetical problem? -- * My schoolboy Latin is a bit rusty, but ad nauseam is roughly translated as "if Jim copies and pastes those same 'Harvey and Lee' talking points one more time, I'm liable to throw up over my keyboard".