Jeremy Bojczuk

Leslie Sharp writes: No. As I pointed out earlier, it was the combination of two factors which made Oswald a useful those-darned-commies-killed-JFK patsy: His personal ties to the Soviet and Cuban regimes. The prima facie evidence which linked him to the rifle and linked the rifle to the shooting. Those factors linked the Soviet and Cuban regimes to the assassination. There was no need for Oswald to have been up on the sixth floor, firing that rifle, or hiding out of sight somewhere else. In fact, if it looked as though Oswald had merely supplied the rifle, and one or more others had actually carried out the assassination, this larger conspiracy would have implicated the Soviet and Cuban regimes more strongly. Presumably the journalist Jim Ewell would have mentioned that they were African Americans if that is what they were. Since he didn't, we should assume that they were white. I'd guess that in the mind of a typical white reporter in the early 1960s, someone's ethnicity wouldn't need to be stated unless it deviated from what he considered to be the default setting.

Sandy Larsen writes: Well, there's a good way to find out, isn't there? Read the remarks in question. I even gave links to each comment, and told everyone which page they were on. I know that ignoring objections is really the only way to continue believing in the far-fetched double-doppelgänger nonsense, but Sandy has no excuse for boasting about doing so. I would expect him to address the points I made, of course, and deal with each of the reasons I gave to show that Burroughs was an unreliable witness. But Jim didn't do that. Instead, he followed his long-standing modus operandi: ignore the counter-arguments, and keep repeating the claims that have just been debunked. See my previous comment for a particularly blatant example of this. Since Sandy didn't read it last time, I'll repeat the non-debunked evidence I put forward to show that Jim's original claim ("The 'Oswald lookalike' in the balcony that Butch Burroughs saw detained by police ...") is mistaken: Burroughs never claimed to have seen anyone come down the stairs from the balcony, apart from seeing a lone woman some time before the police entered the building. Burroughs could not have seen into the balcony from his position at the concession stand at the back of the auditorium, and so could not have seen the police detain anyone up there. Burroughs' story developed over time. In 1964, when appearing before the Warren Commission, he failed to mention anything about seeing an Oswald lookalike being arrested. Burroughs didn't even mention this story to Jim Marrs in 1987. Marrs was keen to find evidence of conspiracy, and surely would have asked Burroughs if he had seen anything suspicious. Burroughs mentioned the story of an arrest for the first time in 1993, 30 years after the arrest of the one and only Oswald. Burroughs expanded his story in 2007, 44 years after the event, when talking to James Douglass. In this version, the person was not only arrested but also placed in handcuffs. I made a couple of other points, also ignored by Jim: The police reports about an arrest in the balcony were made by officers who probably weren't there. The notion that two Oswalds, members of an H&L-style top-secret double-doppelgänger project, would each have given the game away by telling the cops that his name was Oswald, is ludicrous. I also provided a link to a more comprehensive debunking of this alleged incident, so that Jim could check the arguments and documentary evidence for himself. Here's that link again, for Sandy's benefit: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/?do=findComment&comment=407170 It's clear that Burroughs did not see what Jim Hargrove claims he saw. To return to Sandy's question, I would expect Jim to have dealt with each of the points I raised, and done so honestly. The ball was in his court: I explained why Burroughs was an unreliable witness; if he thought my arguments and evidence didn't stand up, he had the opportunity and obligation to explain why. But he didn't, did he? He simply repeated his original claim, as he usually does. I hope that when Jim gets back, he either deals honestly with the points I made (you at the back there, stop sniggering!) or admits that Burroughs was in fact an unreliable witness and that there is no good reason to believe that an Oswald lookalike was arrested in the Texas Theater.

On the subject of Jim Hargrove ignoring objections and simply repeating claims that have just been debunked, those of you who were browsing the forum in 2020 may remember this classic example: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/ Mark Stevens demolished an important batch of H&L eye-witness 'evidence'. Jim Hargrove's reply began with the words: This is what Jim did: he actually admitted that he hadn't even read the debunking in question; he failed to acknowledge, let alone deal with, any of Mark's objections; and then he went on to repeat for the umpteenth time the 'evidence' that had just been debunked. Jim has been doing this sort of thing for years. If this behaviour isn't already against the rules, the rules should be changed.

Sandy Larsen writes: Sandy only needs to read page 9 of this thread! Jim commented: I replied, explaining why Burroughs was an unreliable witness, and why there is no good reason to believe that Burroughs saw any Oswald lookalike detained by the police in the balcony. I even gave a link to a previous comment of mine which explains these things in more detail. Jim replied, quoting a passage from Douglass's book, but not acknowledging any of the points I made which contradicted that passage in Douglass's book. Someone makes a claim. You explain why that claim is mistaken. The person repeats the claim, without acknowledging any of the points you made. What can you do? It's like debating a religious fundamentalist!

Steve Roe writes: The man Haire saw must have been Applin. There are no other candidates. Haire saw one young white man being escorted by one or more police officers out of the rear of the building, placed in a police car, and driven away. He later heard that a young white man had been arrested in the building and accused of shooting JFK. It's understandable that he came to the conclusion that 2 + 2 = 5.

Leslie Sharp writes: Leslie must be aware that Greg is unable to participate here, not being a member. I'm sure Greg reads this forum, even though he can't respond to Leslie here. Leslie and Greg are free to continue their conversation on Facebook or wherever. (I personally don't do FaceChat or InstaTwit or any of those things.) Greg has written about his interactions with Leslie here: https://gregrparker.substack.com/p/let-me-explain This all started when Leslie, in this thread, appeared to accuse Greg or people associated with him of threatening her. I asked her to either provide some evidence to back up her accusation, or withdraw what is quite a serious accusation. So far, she hasn't done either of these things. If she has no evidence, she really ought to do the decent thing and acknowledge that she has no evidence to back up her accusation.

Leslie Sharp writes: He isn't. The best place for Leslie to continue her conversation with Greg is where it began (Facebook, I think). There's no point arguing here with someone who can't respond here. This thread is about Prayer Man. On another thread, I answered Leslie's claim that Oswald could not have been standing on the steps because that would have invalidated his role as a lone-nut patsy. I explained how Oswald could have been framed before the assassination and still have been free to stand wherever he wanted during the assassination: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30101-rob-reiner-talks-about-two-oswalds/?do=findComment&comment=527243 If Leslie wants to continue that particular conversation, this is the appropriate place. P.S. I'm aware that Austin is a more civilised city than Dallas. It could hardly be worse, could it?

Sandy Larsen writes: I beg to differ! Our hypothetical, reasonable member of the public would not consider the lone-nut explanation to be far-fetched in principle, because he or she would be aware that lone nuts are occasionally responsible for assassinations. But he or she would certainly not "believe that the government-issued Warren Commission Report is the definitive guide to the assassination"! Any reasonable person knows that official commissions into politically sensitive subjects will be subject to political pressure and are likely to produce a report that reflects such pressure. He or she, knowing that the subject was controversial, would be appropriately sceptical of the Warren Report's conclusions. Again, no. A reasonable person would be aware that assassinations of prominent political figures are often the result of conspiracies. There are numerous well-known and entirely uncontroversial examples of such conspiracies throughout history: the assassinations of Julius Caesar, Indira Gandhi, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and Abraham Lincoln, to name but a few. The reasonable member of the public would consider neither the lone-nut interpretation nor the conspiracy interpretation to be inherently far-fetched. As for "most of what conspiracy theorists believe", the reasonable person would accept as inherently plausible all sorts of claims by conspiracy theorists in this case. For example: that foreign powers instigated a conspiracy to kill JFK; that domestic political institutions or individuals instigated a conspiracy to kill JFK; that domestic criminal groups instigated a conspiracy to kill JFK; that those who instigated a conspiracy set up one or more patsies to take the blame; that as part of this setting-up, the patsy was impersonated in incriminating situations; that those conspirators ordered or encouraged the murder shortly afterwards of the selected patsy; that political expediency demanded an official lone-nut explanation; that some witnesses were coerced into changing their testimony; that one or more items of evidence were planted at the crime scene. A reasonable person would require appropriate evidence to be presented before accepting that any of these things happened in this case, but he or she would not consider any of these claims to be inherently far-fetched, because a reasonable person would be aware that examples exist of things like this happening in real life. What he or she would consider to be far-fetched would include those conspiracy-theorist minority beliefs that were mentioned earlier: presidential body-snatching squads, the mass alteration of photos and home movies, and long-term double-doppelgänger projects. Why would the reasonable member of the public consider these claims to be inherently far-fetched? Because, as far as he or she is aware, things like this do not happen in real life. He or she would continue to regard these claims as far-fetched until very strong evidence indeed was presented. Trivial anomalies in written documents, images, or witness statements would not be sufficient, because the reasonable person would know that trivial anomalies are not uncommon. They do happen in real life. What a reasonable person would consider far-fetched in this case is not these elements of the standard conspiracy-theorist argument, but the sort of stuff Sandy believes and actively promotes. It's worth pointing out, just in case anyone isn't already aware, that none of the far-fetched stuff is necessary in order to undermine the lone-nut case. You don't require altered presidential corpses or the widespread alteration of films and photos, and you certainly don't require magical Oswald doppelgängers. The far-fetched stuff is not only supported by grossly insufficient evidence, but it actually harms the rational case for conspiracy, because it makes rational critics look like idiots by association. It isn't a coincidence that some of this nonsense was invented by a guy who believed that the moon landings didn't happen. As I have just demonstrated, Sandy's argument is flawed. Only a minority of the claims made by conspiracy theorists are far-fetched according to my definition of the term. I'm sure that a large majority of conspiracy theorists would make perfectly acceptable moderators, as we saw here before Sandy took over. Sandy still doesn't seem to accept that some of the ideas he promotes here would meet any reasonable person's definition of 'far-fetched', while the ideas which the majority of conspiracy theorists promote would not. If you want to know whether or not your claim is 'far-fetched', just ask yourself whether this thing that you're proposing for the JFK assassination has ever happened before or since. I bet you won't find any examples of intelligence agencies setting up long-term mother-and-son doppelgänger projects!

Jim Hargrove writes: No, we are not to believe that Applin was arrested and handcuffed. The reason he didn't mention either of those things is that neither of them happened. I explained this in the post Jim is responding to. Didn't Jim read it? James Douglass's account is flawed, as I explained in the comment from 2019 which I linked to and which Jim also appears not to have read. Here it is again: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/?do=findComment&comment=407170 In that comment, I pointed out that Jim had made some claims that were untrue, including these two: Burroughs had seen an arrest in the balcony - untrue; Burroughs told more than one interviewer that the man he saw was in handcuffs - untrue. Jim puts in boldface Douglass's claim that "Burroughs saw the second Oswald placed under arrest and handcuffed." But, as I explained, there is no good reason to believe that Burroughs's ever-changing story was accurate: Burroughs first made his 'arrested and handcuffed' claim 44 years after the event; it was 30 years after the event when he first mentioned the 'arrested' part, while failing to mention anything about handcuffs; six years before that, in 1987, Burroughs was questioned by Jim Marrs but failed to mention anything about an arrest or handcuffs; in 1964, he failed to tell the Warren Commission anything about an arrest or handcuffs; no other person in the building reported seeing anyone other than the one and only Oswald being arrested or handcuffed; and we have a perfectly plausible explanation for what Burroughs did see: George Applin talking to the police and accompanying them out of the rear of the building so that they could take him to the police station where he gave a statement. New members may not be aware that Jim has been doing this sort of thing for years: making a claim; seeing that claim debunked; failing to respond to the points made in the debunking; and repeating his original claim as though the debunking had never happened. This is not the behaviour of someone who is genuinely interested in finding out the truth of the matter. That's a relief!

Jim Hargrove writes: Applin was indeed on the ground floor, not the balcony, when he was escorted out of the building in order to give a statement at the police station. Butch Burroughs assumed, erroneously, that Applin was being arrested. Burroughs never claimed to have seen anyone detained in the balcony. I dealt with this particular 'Harvey and Lee' canard some time ago in the following comment: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/?do=findComment&comment=407170 Scroll down to the headline, 'Reasons to doubt Burroughs' story'. You'll find out: that Burroughs' story, about seeing an Oswald lookalike being arrested, didn't emerge until 30 years after the event; that Burroughs failed to mention it to the Warren Commission in 1964; that he failed to mention it in 1987 to Jim Marrs, who would surely have asked him if he had noticed anything suspicious; that he never claimed to have seen anyone come down the stairs from the balcony; and that Burroughs could not have seen into the balcony from his location at his concession stand. Elsewhere in that comment you'll find out : that the police reports about an arrest in the balcony were made by officers who probably weren't there; and that there is no chance at all that two members of a top-secret long-term doppelgänger project would give the game away by each telling the police that his name was Oswald. The story of a second Oswald being arrested in the Texas Theater is a myth.

Sandy Larsen writes: My position is that people can believe what they like, but those who actively promote beliefs which a reasonable member of the public would consider to be far-fetched, should not be moderators. That's because whenever such a moderator imposes penalties on someone who disagrees with those far-fetched beliefs, reasonable people might suspect, rightly or wrongly, that the moderator is not acting fairly. That is nonsense. I'm not calling for that at all. Sandy has repeatedly failed to understand what I mean by 'far-fetched'. As I've explained several times, the standard for what should be considered far-fetched in the context of the JFK assassination is not what Sandy would consider far-fetched (there's not much that he would consider far-fetched, is there?), or what a lone-nut believer would consider far-fetched. It is what a reasonable member of the public, with no preconceived opinions about the assassination, would consider to be far-fetched. All of the topics Jim DiEugenio mentions would fall into this category, as of course would anything involving long-term mother-and-son doppelgänger projects. Any reasonable member of the public would consider all of these topics far-fetched because they would not match his or her understanding of how the world works. In the real world, body-snatching squads do not kidnap presidents' bodies and perform surgery on them; there are no instances of the mass alteration of photos and home movies of presidential assassinations; and intelligence agencies do not set up schemes involving long-term doppelgängers in the hope that when two unrelated boys grow up they will turn out to look identical. If anyone wants to convince a reasonable member of the public that any of these things happened, for the first and only time, in the JFK assassination, they need to provide very strong evidence indeed. Sandy also writes: Oh dear.

Sandy Larsen writes: No, I don't believe that. The FBI report tells us what happened: "TIPPIT SAID ARTICLE RESULTED FROM TELEPHONE CALL FROM REPORTER WHO WAS CHECKING ALL TIPPITS IN LOCAL TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES." Evidently the reporter contacted all the available Tippits in the area, and came to the conclusion that the couple in Westport may have been related to the policeman. Or the reporter made a mistake. Or the reporter got the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the Westport Tippits weren't sure that they were distantly related to the Dallas policeman. "May be distantly related" would be newsworthy enough for a local paper in the context of the biggest news story for years. Has anyone checked the newspaper in question and found out exactly what the reporter wrote? That would resolve the uncertainty, but until then, all we have to go on is the FBI's account of what Mr Tippit said: the newspaper mentioned that the Tippits "may be" related to the policeman. There's no good reason to assume that the crank caller knew something for a fact that wasn't reported in the paper.

Jim Hargrove writes: The question I asked was: John Newman and Peter Dale Scott may be "open to the concept" of two people sharing someone's identity, but do they actually believe the essential features of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory? Namely, that shortly after the end of the second world war the CIA set up a scheme in which: The boy Oswald was given an unrelated eastern European boy as a doppelgänger. Oswald's mother was given an unrelated woman (origin unspecified) as a doppelgänger. The doppelgänger mother was unrelated not only to the real Oswald's real mother, but also to the doppelgänger Oswald boy whose mother she pretended to be. The unrelated eastern European doppelgänger boy was chosen by the CIA specifically for his native ability to speak Russian. The geniuses at the CIA allowed this unrelated Oswald doppelgänger to forget so much of his native Russian that he had to learn the language all over again, thereby defeating the whole point of the scheme. The two households, one with a real Oswald and his real mother, and the other with a doppelgänger Oswald and a doppelgänger stand-in mother, were maintained for a decade or more. The intention was for the two boys to turn out, a decade or more after the scheme was set up, to be so close in appearance that they would be mistaken for each other, and for the two women to remain so close in appearnce that they too would be mistaken for each other. And then: During the assassination, one of the Oswald doppelgängers was up on the sixth floor of the book depository, shooting at JFK, exactly as the Warren Report has it, while the other doppelgänger was elsewhere in the building. As soon as the real-life, one and only Oswald was murdered, one Oswald doppelgänger and one of the mother doppelgängers vanished without trace, almost as if they had never existed in the first place. Are Newman and Scott even aware of these essential elements of the theory? I suspect not. If they are, have they offered an opinion about each of the elements? Did they burst out laughing? Was it explained to Newman and Scott that the 'Harvey and Lee' story requires the official lone-nut narrative to be correct, single-bullet theory and all? They'd dismiss it out of hand if they knew that part, wouldn't they? Did they ask to see the direct documentary evidence which such a long-term project would have generated: internal memos, progress reports, financial records, etc? If they did ask to see this evidence, what did they say when they were told that none of it exists?

Tracy Parnell writes: He could at least make an effort, couldn't he? As I pointed out elsewhere, problems are bound to arise when someone who actively promotes divisive beliefs acquires the powers of a moderator. Whether or not Sandy is justified in repeatedly suspending those who disagree with the far-fetched beliefs he actively promotes, his actions will generate suspicion. Those who disagree with his far-fetched beliefs, whether they are existing members or potential members, will suspect that they won't be treated fairly. Sooner or later, dissenting voices will vanish and the forum will become an echo-chamber for far-fetched beliefs. I'm sure Sandy wouldn't want that to happen. P.S. Apologies for posting so many comments at one time, but Sandy sent me to the sin bin for a couple of days. I assume, from his absence, that Jonathan too has again been temporarily banished by our immoderate moderator: https://jacks.forumotion.com/t22-the-ballad-of-the-immoderate-moderator

On page 4, Sandy Larsen writes: Sandy's statement that "So she knew that the Tippits she was trying to contact were indeed related to J.D. Tippit in Dallas" is incorrect. The caller clearly did not know this to be a fact, and Sandy tells us why: "in all likelihood [she] discovered from reading a local news article ..." The caller appears to have learned of the existence of the Westport Tippits by reading that newspaper article. But she did not learn from the newspaper that those Tippits were relatives of the Dallas policeman, because the newspaper did not make that claim. According to the FBI's account, the newspaper article "STATED THAT WE MAY BE A DISTANT RELATIVE OF THE DALLAS POLICEMAN" (capitals in the original). The newspaper stated that they "may be" distant relatives, not that they were distant relatives. If that was all the information the caller possessed, there's no reason to assume that the caller knew anything for a fact beyond that the Westport Tippits existed. Tracy's article, which Jonathan posted, was correct. John Armstrong was mistaken when he claimed that the caller "knew" that the Westport Tippits were related to the Dallas policeman. As Tracy points out, Armstrong was presumably trying to give the evidence more weight than it deserved. Although, as Tracy also points out, Armstrong's mistake is a trivial one, Armstrong's small but devoted band of followers here have turned this into a more serious matter: First, Jim Hargrove wrote that "You [Jonathan] obviously don’t care that you quote demonstrably false statements by Tracy Parnell." Then Sandy Larsen jumped in, accusing Jonathan of posting a "knowingly false" claim which Jim "has proven to be false." Two forum members, Jim and Sandy, have made unsubstantiated claims against two other forum members, Jonathan and Tracy. Not only has Jim not proven Tracy's claim to be false, but the claim itself was not "demonstrably false" or "knowingly false". Tracy's claim was correct, and Jonathan was justified in posting it. I haven't checked the forum's rules, but I'd be surprised if members are allowed to accuse other members of making and quoting "demonstrably false statements" when no such statements were made. If Jonathan's current absence is because he has been suspended (or worse) as a result of Jim and Sandy's inaccurate accusations, something really needs to be done, if only to prevent something similar happening in the future. Who moderates the moderators?

Lesley continues: As I explained on page 4, there was only one arrest in the Texas Theatre. George Applin was assumed, erroneously, to have been arrested when he was in fact escorted out of the rear of the building in order to give a statement to the police: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30101-rob-reiner-talks-about-two-oswalds/?do=findComment&comment=526979 More worryingly, Lesley also writes: Is Leslie seriously suggesting that Greg Parker, or anyone connected to him, was behind such threats? She would need to produce some pretty strong evidence to justify that claim. I hope she will either produce that evidence or make it very clear indeed that she isn't accusing anyone ("Aussies ... these fellows ... Greg") of such behaviour.

Leslie Sharp writes: Jim Hargrove agrees: This supposed problem with the Prayer Man idea has been debunked on this forum several times already. Here we go again: Just because Oswald was accused after the assassination of being a lone nut, this does not imply that the lone-nut story was built into any assassination conspiracy from the start. The lone-nut story was a political response to the rumours of Soviet or Cuban involvement in the assassination, which emerged once Oswald's supposed sympathies with those regimes became known. The Soviet and Cuban regimes were linked to Oswald through his defection and his supposedly pro-Castro activity. Oswald in turn was linked to the assassination through his apparent ownership of the sixth-floor rifle. Whether or not Oswald himself fired the rifle was immaterial. The most plausible reason for framing Oswald before the assassination was to implicate the Cuban or Soviet regimes in the assassination. Oswald didn't need to be a lone nut; in fact, Cuban or Soviet involvement would have been more plausible if their guy in the book depository had accomplices. A local communist conspiracy would have been more effective at implicating those regimes than a lone nut with communist sympathies. The more communist assassins there were in Dealey Plaza, the better. During the assassination, Oswald could have been anywhere inside the building, or anywhere outside the building. He could have phoned in sick that morning. Oswald and Frazier could have been involved in a car crash on their way to work, and been in hospital while the assassination was taking place. Oswald could have flown to Washington and been singing The Star-Spangled Banner on the lawn of the White House during the assassination. Oswald would still have been implicated in the assassination, simply through his apparent ownership of the rifle. It's a mistake to assume that everything that happened was planned in advance.

What exactly is "knowingly false" about the passage in Tracy's article that's quoted by Jonathan? The quotation makes this claim: The item which Tracy says is incorrect is John Armstrong's statement that the woman caller "knew the Tippits were related to Officer JD Tippit." The quotation marks here imply that these words were written by Armstrong. Is that the "knowingly false" claim which Jim and Sandy find objectionable? Are Jim and Sandy claiming that Armstrong did not write those words? (This is a genuine question. Tracy is quoting from a presentation by Armstrong which I don't have access to.) I don't see anything in the FBI's account of the telephone call which contradicts Tracy's claim about Armstrong's statement. The FBI document states that the caller "asked if Mr Tippit was ... related to the policeman Tippit who was shot in Dallas." It does not state or imply that the caller "knew the Tippits were related to Officer JD Tippit" as Armstrong appears to have claimed. Tracy's point seems to be that: Armstrong claimed the woman knew that Mr Tippit of Westport, Connecticut, was related to Officer J.D. Tippit. But the FBI document shows that the woman did not know this. The woman "asked if Mr Tippit was ... related to the policeman Tippit who was shot in Dallas." She didn't state it to be a fact; she asked whether or not it was a fact. If John Armstrong did in fact write the words attributed to him by Tracy Parnell, then Jonathan Cohen did not violate the forum rule which prohibits the posting of "knowingly false" statements, because Tracy's conclusion ("Unfortunately, it is incorrect") is justified: Armstrong's claim was indeed incorrect. Now, Jim Hargrove has made a claim of his own: "you [Jonathan] quote demonstrably false statements by Tracy Parnell". But the statement of Tracy's which Jim brings up as an example of a "demonstrably false" statement appears not to be "demonstrably false" at all, but demonstrably accurate (unless Tracy misquoted Armstrong's text which I don't have access to). Who exactly is breaking the forum's rules here? And who needs to apologise to whom?

The Texas Theater misunderstanding was resolved here and on the ROKC forum a few years ago. See, for example: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2051-time-to-kill-another-myth-there-was-no-second-oswald-arrested-at-the-theater http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/?do=findComment&comment=407170 There was only one Oswald in the Texas Theater. This wasn't even a case of a plausible short-term impersonation, let alone an implausible scheme involving a pair of imaginary long-term doppelgängers. The person whom Burroughs erroneously claimed (three decades after the event, having failed to mention it to Jim Marrs) he saw being arrested was George Jefferson Applin, Jr, who had not been arrested but was being escorted by the police to one of their cars parked at the rear of the building. From there, Applin was taken to the police station, where he gave a statement. The police then drove him back to the Texas Theater. Applin, a 21-year-old white man, was the person whom Bernard Haire saw at the rear of the building. Haire assumed that Applin was being arrested, and jumped to the erroneous conclusion that the young white man he saw was the young white man who was accused of shooting JFK. This incident illustrates the main problem with Douglass's book. He takes all sorts of dubious evidence at face value and weaves an unlikely narrative out of it. People read his book, take it at face value (it's got endnotes in it, with references and stuff, so it must be true!), and the myth continues that a second Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater. Whenever faced with an inherently implausible claim involving lizard people, imaginary doppelgängers, or little green men, readers should use their critical faculties and get into the habit of checking primary sources, e.g.: George Applin's affidavit: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338846/ Applin's Warren Commission testimony: Hearings, vol.7, pp.14-17 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=41#relPageId=24) The ROKC thread I mentioned is worth reading in full. One remark by Greg Parker stands out:

Jim Hargrove writes: And I replied to that post, pointing out that the three examples Jim provided do not support his far-fetched double-doppelgänger fantasy: Konon Molodiy was one person who took on a false identity in his thirties. Antonio and Patricio DeLaGuardia were a pair of identical twins. Michael Ross was one person who took on false identities as an adult. None of Jim's three examples contained any of the far-fetched features which are essential elements of his double-doppelgänger fantasy: Two unrelated children recruited by an intelligence agency in the hope that when they had grown up, a decade or more later, they would be so close in appearance that they would be mistaken for one another. Two unrelated women recruited into the scheme who also were virtually identical; one of the women being the mother of one of the children, while the other woman was unrelated to any of the other three participants. Would Jim please provide even one real-life example of that precise arrangement, or a near equivalent? As I also pointed out, not only are there no known examples of such doppelgänger boys with doppelgänger mothers, but there does not appear to be any direct evidence that such a scheme has been set up, by any intelligence agency, anywhere in the world, ever: There are no internal memos proposing such a scheme. There are no internal memos giving official approval to implement such a scheme. There are no internal memos discussing candidates for the roles of doppelgänger boys or doppelgänger mothers. There are no progress reports about how closely the growing boys continued to resemble each other (or, much more likely, increasingly failed to resemble each other). There are no financial accounts to do with any such scheme, which would have involved the employment of support staff over more than a decade. There are no official employment records for any of the hypothetical support staff. There are no reports from whistle-blowers about any such scheme. There aren't even any internal memos refusing the setting-up of such a scheme ("You want us to recruit two unrelated boys with two unrelated mothers, in the hope that they'll turn out to be virtually identical a decade later? What have you been smoking? And one of the boys must be a native speaker of Russian, but then you're going to let him forget most of his Russian so that he has to learn the language all over again? What's the point of setting up the scheme, then? Get outta here!"). There appears to be no direct evidence at all. Does Jim (or Sandy, or any other believer) have any direct documentary evidence which the rest of us don't know about? Internal memos, progress reports, pay slips, that sort of thing?

Jim Hargrove writes: In other words, Newman and Scott don't subscribe to the central features of the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense, the claim that the CIA set up a scheme in which: Two unrelated boys were recruited at a young age in the hope that when they grew up they would turn out to be so close in appearance that they would be mistaken for each other. The mother of one of the boys and an unrelated woman, were also recruited, and that the two women were so close in appearance that they would be mistaken for each other. One of the Oswald doppelgängers was recruited specifically for his knowledge of Russian, only for him to be allowed to forget so much of his Russian that he had to learn the language again, thereby defeating the whole point of recruiting him in the first place. One of the Oswald doppelgängers and one of the mother doppelgängers disappeared from the face of the earth immediately after the murder of the real, one-and-only Oswald by Jack Ruby, with no explanation of where they went or how their disappearance came about. This claim is preposterous, and is supported by no direct evidence. There appear to be no memos, progress reports, financial records, or any other documentation referring to such a scheme. I'd be extremely surprised (and disappointed) if Newman or Scott take this preposterous claim seriously. Do Newman and Scott really believe that Oswald and his mother were part of a long-term double-doppelgänger scheme that began when Oswald was a boy? If they don't, Jim really should stop citing them as supporters of he 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense. As Jonathan points out, the central claims of he 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense are believed by almost no-one who treats the JFK assassination as a serious historical event. That's because it is just the lone-nut narrative dressed up in a tin-foil hat.

Bill Brown writes: Of course! And I have no reason to suppose that Sandy's actions against Miles, Jonathan and Pat were motivated by his disagreements with those members. Caesar's wife comes to mind. A moderator must not only act fairly; he or she must be seen to act fairly. A moderator who actively promotes far-fetched beliefs will inevitably generate suspicion whenever he uses his moderator's powers against those who disagree with him. If people suspect, rightly or wrongly, that they won't get a fair deal on this forum, they are unlikely to hang around or even join in the first place. Hence the paucity here of lone-nutters and non-paranoid conspiracy theorists. I'm aware of several ex-members who questioned one or more far-fetched theories and were either banned or left of their own accord as a result. It's good that Sandy devotes time to the administration of this forum. The Watercoolers feature, which I assume Sandy had a hand in creating, was an effective way of defusing partisan political disagreements that had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. But the power to suspend or ban members should not be in the hands of people who actively promote far-fetched or otherwise divisive beliefs, because at some point those people will act against members who disagree with them, and suspicion will be generated. Personally, I think the panel of moderators should be entirely (or, at worst, largely) comprised of people who do not actively promote such beliefs. Whether enough suitable members can be found is another matter.

All three of Jim's "clear examples of long-term impersonations used in spycraft" fail to answer the question I asked. None of the cases he mentions provide direct evidence for an H&L-type scenario: Konon Molodiy (aka Gordon Lonsdale) was not a pair of unrelated doppelgängers recruited as boys and raised in separate households under the guidance of a national intelligence organisation. Nor, as far as we know, was his mother a pair of unrelated doppelgängers. Molodiy was one person who took on a false identity in his thirties. Antonio and Patricio DeLaGuardia were a pair of identical twins, not a pair of unrelated doppelgängers recruited as boys and raised in separate households by a national intelligence orgainsation. Their mother was not, as far as we know, a pair of unrelated doppelgängers. Michael Ross was one person who took on false identities as an adult. He was not a pair of unrelated doppelgängers recruited as boys and raised in separate households by a national intelligence orgainsation. His mother too appears not to have been a pair of unrelated doppelgängers. The last time I brought up this point, perhaps two or three years ago, Jim offered these examples and that of Mata Hari. Needless to say, Mata Hari was not a pair of unrelated doppelgängers recruited as girls and raised in separate households by a national intelligence orgainsation; nor was her mother a pair of unrelated doppelgängers. At least Jim didn't bother to mention Mata Hari this time. We're making progress, slowly. This illustrates the point I was making. There appears to be no direct evidence in the historical record, anywhere in the world, of a scheme with the essential characteristics of the 'Harvey and Lee' double-doppelgänger scheme: Two unrelated children recruited by an intelligence organisation in the hope that when they grew up they would be so close in appearance that they would be mistaken for one another. Two unrelated women recruited into the scheme who also were virtually identical; one of the women being the mother of one of the children, while the other woman was unrelated to any of the other three participants. (Not to mention the other nonsensical aspects of H&L mythology, such as recruiting one of the boys specifically for his native ability to speak a foreign language, only for the scheme's administrators to allow him to forget so much of the language that he had to learn it all over again, thereby defeating the whole purpose of the scheme. But we'll ignore those aspects for now.) As far as we can tell, no such scheme has ever happened in real life, and there is no direct evidence that it happened in this case. It is not unreasonable to expect direct evidence to exist, if the schemes existed. If one intelligence agency thought a scheme like this was obviously practical enough to be worth implementing, other intelligence agencies would surely have considered implementing such a scheme too. Each agency might well have done so more than once. Because the chance was slim that any given pair of unrelated boys would turn out to look virtually identical a decade later, each agency would have had to set up several such schemes in the hope that one of them might produce the goods. Numerous documents would have been generated, many of which we could expect to have been released to the public over the last few decades. But no documents exist which specifically refer to the implementation of such a scheme: There are no memos discussing setting up such a scheme. There are no memos giving the go-ahead for such a scheme. There are no memos identifying candidates for the role of doppelgänger boy and doppelgänger mother. There are no progress reports on each scheme ("13th birthday: Boys identical! 14th birthday: Boys still identical! 15th birthday: Gosh darn it! Let's close this one down and see if scheme number 27 turns out OK"). That's what I meant when I pointed out that any reasonable person would consider the H&L double-doppelgänger scheme to be far-fetched (or worse). Schemes like this simply don't happen in real life.

Jim Hargrove writes: Among those preposterous claims were: The moon landings were faked Oswald and his mother were part of a long-term double-doppelgänger scheme No planes hit the World Trade Center 'Crackpot' is an appropriate word for anyone who publicly promoted such nonsense. As for White's lack of ability as a photographic analyst, this was illustrated during his HSCA testimony. See Proceedings of the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations, vol. 2, pp. 338-344: https://www.clavius.org/white-test.html

Jim Hargrove writes: Calling Jack White a crackpot isn't an insult. As I pointed out, he believed not only that the moon landings didn't actually happen but also that no planes hit the World Trade Center. Anyone who believes either of these things, let alone both of them, qualifies as a crackpot by most people's definition of the term. And he also helped to think up the double-doppelgänger nonsense, a scenario which is just as far-fetched as those other two scenarios. Why would a reasonable member of the public consider the H&L double-doppelgänger scenario to be far-fetched? Because it is something that simply doesn't happen in real life. There are plenty of real-life examples of people being impersonated, but there don't appear to be any real-life examples of two unrelated boys being chosen at any early age in the hope that when they grew up they would turn out to be virtually identical, as well as two unrelated women also being chosen, and that years later the two unrelated boys and the two unrelated women would indeed turn out to be virtually identical (let alone all the other preposterous elements of the theory). Two pairs of doppelgängers, maintained by the CIA for more than a decade, and each pair of doppelgängers just happening to turn out virtually identical! How many examples are there of intelligence organisations even proposing to set up such a scheme, let alone giving it the green light, let alone actually putting it into practice and carrying it on for more than a decade? We have access these days to records from many intelligence organisations, on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Where are the memos discussing long-term double-doppelgänger schemes? Where are the documents identifying possible doppelgänger boys and possible doppelgänger mothers? Where are any of the numerous other documents that such a scheme would have generated? There's no direct evidence that any such scheme has ever happened anywhere in the world, is there?