Jeremy Bojczuk

Tracy Parnell writes: Jack White? Let me think. Which Jack White was that? It must be Jack "Frank Kudlaty was a friend of mine for fifty years, er, hang on, Frank who, no, never heard of the guy" White. Is he any relation to Jack "the moon landings were faked" White? For White's changing story about his relationship with Kudlaty, see: - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2208-dear-sandy#33635 - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2208-dear-sandy#33647 Greg also makes a good point about the unreliability of Robert Oswald's memories of what his brother had done years earlier: - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209-dear-jim#33533 Robert wrote in his book that "In the early 1950s, Lee watched that show [I Led Three Lives] every week without fail. When I left home to join the Marines, he was still watching the reruns." Robert's recollection appears to have been faulty. The show was not made until 1953, the year after Robert joined the Marines, and the reruns would not have started until at least 1956, when the original broadcasts ended. And who was it who demonstrated that Robert's recollection was faulty? Why, it was none other than John "I deliberately concealed from my readers a fact that disproved my theory" Armstrong * (in H&L, p.42). On the subject of Robert Oswald's unreliability, I'm quoting an excerpt from the cult's manual, How to Cherry-Pick Evidence: As others have pointed out, 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine claims that the unreliable source in question, Robert Oswald, was in on the plot, and would surely have been instructed not to give the game away by blurting out the incriminating claim that his doppelganger brother had attended a school he wasn't supposed to have attended. Robert would have been just as stupid as the Oswald doppelganger who also gave the game away when arrested in the Texas Theater, by telling the cops his name was Oswald. * And what was the fact that was concealed from his readers by John "I deliberately concealed from my readers a fact that disproved my theory" Armstrong? Why, it was the existence of a mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave, which contradicted Armstrong's carefully worked-out biographies of his two fictional doppelgangers. Armstrong's theory had been disproved two decades before he published his book, and he knew it. It was the necessity of diverting readers' attention from that unwelcome information that obliged Jim Hargrove to bring up the Stripling stuff as a distraction, as you can see if you go back to page 12. Now that the Stripling stuff is facing similar challenges, what will the 'Harvey and Lee' shuffle bring us next? Bolton Ford? The 13-inch head?

James Norwood writes: Here's one such link. A friend of Jim's from down under points out that James is at risk of making himself the subject of ridicule, like his fellow believers: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209-dear-jim#33708 Just because the 'Harvey and Lee' believers like it so much, here's some interesting reading on the whole Stripling nonsense: - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1361-creating-mayhem-with-historical-records - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1624-forwarding-school-records-and-erroneous-recorded-information - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2208-dear-sandy - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1444-the-stripling-bullxxxx-rears-its-ugly-head-again - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1397-armstrong-asks - https://www.thenewdisease.space/hardlylee-nut - http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/robert-oswald-and-stripling.html - http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24524-the-hl-two-schools-at-the-same-time-mystery/ - http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24469-new-article-by-john-armstrong/page/15/?tab=comments#comment-366368

The lastest episode of "look over there!" evidence-avoidance by the 'Harvey and Lee' believers began when James Norwood declared that Mark Stevens did what James had neglected to do: he actually looked critically at the eyewitnesses' statements. Mark explained why none of the six "clearly recalled" what James claimed they "clearly recalled". Jim Hargrove then performed his usual "look over there!" act. He completely ignored Mark's analysis; he pretended it didn't exist; he congratulated James on upholding 'Harvey and Lee' dogma; and he brought up a different 'Harvey and Lee' talking point to divert attention from the problem of the eyewitnesses' statements. James, on the other hand, invented spurious reasons to avoid answering Mark's questions: But Mark's questions are entirely relevant to the issue of whether an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling, the very issue James himself had raised. Mark explained how the statements of James's "six eyewitnesses" did not support James's claim. If James wants anyone to take seriously his claim that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling, he needs to rescue his now worthless "six eyewitnesses" by countering Mark's analysis of their statements. Neither Jim nor James has yet felt brave enough to deal with the points Mark made, despite several reasonable requests to do so. Why? What have they got to lose? It's unlikely that they would end up sacrificing potential converts to their belief system; surely everyone still reading this thread has already made their mind up on the 'Harvey and Lee' question. Come on, guys! Everyone makes mistakes! You may as well come clean, admit that Mark was right and you were wrong, and then (and only then) move on to the next 'Harvey and Lee' talking point. Actually, the believers do have something to lose. James's Stripling witnesses are not anomalies. A sizeable part of the 'Harvey and Lee' edifice is built on exactly the same shaky foundations: vague recollections of something that may or may not have happened several decades earlier. Once you admit the weakness of one set of vague, decades-old recollections, how do you deny the weakness of all the other vague, decades-old recollections? You'd open the floodgates, and the flimsy 'Harvey and Lee' structure would be swept away. If you know how flimsy that structure is but you can't face admitting it, your best option is to divert attention from the weak eyewitness evidence. Look over there! School records! Bolton Ford! Texas Theater! If James Norwood and Jim Hargrove truly have faith in their belief system, they should risk opening those floodgates, and follow Robert Charles-Dunne's advice: Stop running away, James and Jim! Take each of the "six eyewitnesses ... [who] clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling" and explain how their statements justify that conclusion. If you can't do that, just admit that you were wrong.

Sandy Larsen writes: Jim may have discussed the statements, but he hadn't (and still hasn't) discussed the problems Mark identified with those statements. I'd guess this comment by Jim on page 18 is what Sandy is referring to: In the comment immediately following Jim's, Mark dissected these four witnesses' statements. Mark gave good reasons to doubt that these witnesses actually saw Oswald attend Stripling: one of them didn't remember Oswald at all, and the other three (in the traditional style of 'Harvey and Lee' witnesses) offered nothing more than vague recollections from several decades after the event. It was James Norwood who first mentioned the Stripling Six, in the comment immediately after Mark's: Then James condescendingly told Mark: A 'Harvey and Lee' believer telling others to "look [at] evidence with greater care"! Mark looked at James's evidence for the Stripling Six with greater care, and pointed out the usual flaws: Mark has explained the weakness of Jim's four Stripling witnesses and of the other two witnesses mentioned by James. As for the seventh witness, Tracy Parnell has pointed out that Robert Oswald had no first-hand knowledge of which school his brother attended, because by that time Robert had joined the Marines and was no longer living in Fort Worth. And that's it. Neither Jim Hargrove nor James Norwood has attempted to produce a counter-argument. It's up to Messrs Hargrove and Norwood to justify the claims they made, if they can. Until they (or Sandy, or John Butler) do so, there are no credible witnesses to Oswald's attending Stripling. It's interesting to compare the responses by Jim Hargrove and James Norwood. Jim did what he usually does when backed into a corner: he avoided the uncomfortable questions Mark asked by regurgitating a 'Harvey and Lee' talking point, as if repeating the same stuff over and over will convince anyone. James, on the other hand, has gone awol. Has anyone seen James recently? As Mark wrote:

Wow. The 'Harvey and Lee' belief system really is a cult, isn't it? Mark Stevens has demonstrated the flimsiness of Messrs Hargrove and Norwood's witnesses: What does Jim do? Does he come up with arguments to counter Mark's analysis? No, because of course he can't; Mark is clearly correct. Instead, Jim puts his head in the sand and pretends that nothing has happened! He doesn't even acknowledge the evidence Mark put forward. He simply regurgitates the same 'Harvey and Lee' talking point all over again. It's as though Mark's comments don't exist. If anyone has ever debated religious fundamentalists, you'll recognise the same mentality here. Fundamentalists, a category which evidently includes 'Harvey and Lee' cult members, cannot accept that they might be wrong. Praise Armstrong! We know in our hearts that we are right, and that's the end of it. Whatever evidence the unbelievers put forward cannot, by definition, be correct. We know that the unbelievers are wrong, so let's keep quoting more Scripture at them, and eventually they'll understand the error of their ways. Will Jim at least have the honesty to deal with the points Mark made? Take each of the six witnesses in turn and explain how Mark was wrong, or admit that Mark was right.

As much as I admire Sandy's expertise in dentistry and photographic analysis, I don't find his excursion into philosophy very convincing. I've explained why the circular reasoning he claimed to see was a figment of his imagination. As for all the other "logical fallacies" he claims to see, Armstrong alone knows where he got those from. If anyone other than Sandy really gives a [insert rude word here] about any of this, they can examine the evidence for themselves by following these handy links, where Jim will find his Stripling allegations dealt with: - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209-dear-jim - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2208-dear-sandy Jim writes: Do I detect a hint of paranoia here? I've got nothing against Jim as a person, and I'm sure he's a fine, upstanding citizen who frequently rescues cats stranded up trees, and always takes his library books back on time, and never goes one mile per hour above the speed limit. As Al Pacino said, it's nothing personal. But Jim is Chief Evangelist for one of the nuttiest (yet most actively promoted) and cult-like theories associated with the JFK assassination, and he deserves to be criticised for that. If the general public were to associate questioning of the lone-nut theory with the speculative 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense, even rational critics are liable to be dismissed as crackpots, and the case will never be treated seriously. The problems I raised with Jim were twofold: Firstly, he made a substantial claim for which he has provided absolutely no evidence, namely that the FBI "altered a document or two" regarding the mastoidectomy that was carried out on the one and only, real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. Jim hasn't even been able to tell us which documents he was referring to, let alone demonstrate that they were altered. He gives the impression that he simply made it all up, and he deserves to be put on the spot about this. Secondly, he has repeatedly been unable to refute the evidence that his guru, John Armstrong (praise his name!), deliberately concealed from his readers an important fact that proved Armstrong's theory to be false. So let's see if Jim can come up with some answers this time: What is your evidence that the FBI "altered a document or two" concerning Oswald's mastoidectomy? If you can't produce any such evidence, will you admit that you made the whole thing up? Armstrong, co-inventor of the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense along with Jack "no planes hit the World Trade Center" White, was behaving like a slippery, dishonest snake-oil salesman, wasn't he?

Sandy writes: You may feel that way, but you're still obliged to explain why each alleged instance of alteration might have occurred. What you can't do is simply snap your fingers and declare that documents have been altered, as Jim did when he claimed that the FBI "altered a document or two" relating to Oswald's mastoidectomy. Jim made a claim for which he has produced absolutely no evidence, just to get out of having to admit that Armstrong deliberately misled his readers. Not only has Jim not produced any evidence that these documents were altered, despite repeated requests, but he can't even tell us which documents he was talking about. It looks as though he made the whole thing up. Just because the FBI and other official agencies altered some evidence, you can't assume that any other given piece of evidence has been altered. You still have to justify your claim with regard to the piece of evidence in question, and explain why you think it was altered (sadly, "it contradicts Scripture" won't do). The second assumption is justified. But the phrase "both Oswalds" contains an assumption that isn't justified. The onus is on 'Harvey and Lee' believers to prove that there were two Oswalds; it isn't on critics to prove that there weren't. Until a case can be made that convinces a large number of reasonable people, there's no justification for treating the doppelgangers as anything other than hypothetical (or, as I would prefer to put it, imaginary). Critical examination of 'Harvey and Lee' talking points reveals a remarkable tendency for them to possess perfectly ordinary alternative explanations, as we have seen with topics such as the 13-inch head, the missing tooth (which, according to Jim, was game, set and match for the 'Harvey and Lee' theory!), and most recently the Stripling school records (see here and here). Once you take away the talking points that have perfectly ordinary explanations, what's left? Not much, that's what. For anyone who's interested, here are some of the 'Harvey and Lee' talking points that have perfectly ordinary explanations: - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1588-harvey-lee-links-to-alternative-explanations - http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/search/label/Harvey%20%26%20Lee Now, a reminder of those questions that Jim has been refusing to answer: (a) Which documents, exactly, did the FBI alter regarding Oswald's mastoidectomy? And what evidence do you have that they were altered, apart from the fact that they apparently contradict Scripture? (b) Do you have an explanation for Armstrong's failure to mention the mastoidectomy defect that doesn't make him look like a snake-oil salesman?

Sandy also writes: I suppose "inconsistency" is one way of describing the fact that a scientific report flatly contradicted a central element of Armstrong's theory! But it doesn't look as though Armstrong does have an answer for this "inconsistency". His book was the place to explain the "inconsistency", since he knew about it when he wrote his book. He deliberately neglected to tell his readers about the "inconsistency", which was a little bit naughty, wasn't it? Unfortunately, Armstrong has so little faith in his theory that he won't defend it by debating with critics. It would be good to see him join Jim and Sandy in defending his theory on Greg's forum (I assume their applications for membership are in the pipeline). In the meantime, perhaps someone to whom Armstrong has graciously granted an audience could tell us how he hopes to get over the serious obstacle that the scientists' report poses for his theory. He's had a couple of decades to think of a way out of this problem. Has he come up with anything yet? The more important question is: who was the Lee Harvey Oswald who underwent the mastoidectomy operation in 1946? There are several candidates: (a) The one and only, real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. Until the existence of any doppelgangers can be proved, which, as we have seen, is a very long way off, he's the default candidate. (b) Imaginary doppelganger A, the American one, who was not buried in Oswald's grave. This is what Armstrong claimed in his book. Unfortunately, the scientific report of Oswald's exhumation proved that Armstrong was wrong about this. The body in the grave had undergone a mastoidectomy. (c) Imaginary doppelganger B, the eastern European one, who was buried in the grave. This is what Jim Hargrove claimed a few pages ago. On the plus side, it's good that Jim has bravely gone against established doctrine on this point. Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, Jim has so far been unable to provide any justification for his speculative claim. Also unfortunately, this interpretation would involve a serious reconstruction of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory's speculative biographies, since, according to Scripture, imaginary eastern European doppelganger B wasn't supposed to have been selected for the top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme until several years after the mastoidectomy operation took place, and so wouldn't have been using the name of the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. (d) Imaginary doppelgangers A and B. This seems to be Sandy's preferred option. Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, Sandy too has so far been unable to provide any justification for his speculative claim. Items of evidence that are currently missing include: documents showing imaginary doppelganger B's entry into the USA; and documents showing the date of doppelganger B's operation, and the hospital in which it was performed. (e) A creature from outer space. This is probably the candidate Jack "no planes hit the World Trade Center" White would have chosen. The problem with this option is that any documents concerning the creature's mastoidectomy operation would be written in Klingon or something. But at least it's a credible alternative to the two imaginary doppelgangers. By the way, it's good to see Sandy mentioning "Jack White's crazy beliefs", twice. At least he agrees with me about White's sanity! While we're on the subject of Armstrong's problems with the mastoidectomy, has Jim managed to think of a plausible reason for Armstrong's failure to mention the mastoidectomy defect in his book? He was behaving like a slippery snake-oil salesman, wasn't he, Jim? Come on! You can admit it! And let's not forget the other question Jim keeps forgetting to answer, the "document or two" relating to the mastoidectomy which Jim claimed had been "altered" by the FBI. Which documents, exactly, did the FBI alter, Jim? And what reasons can you give to show that they were altered?

Sandy made the same mistake in another post: No, that's not the only reason to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong about handing over copies of Oswald's school records to the FBI. I gave Sandy several reasons to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong. The "[assumption] that there was only one Oswald" was not one of them. These are the reasons I gave: 1 - Kudlaty made no statements about the matter until White (whom Kudlaty had known, a pertinent fact that went unmentioned) and Armstrong got in touch with him several decades after the assassination. 2 - Kudlaty is unlikely to have had access to Oswald's school records, for several reasons: 2 (a) - the records are likely to have been stored elsewhere, at the school district office, not at the school itself; 2 (b) - he did not take the elementary precaution of asking for a receipt or making copies of those records (and copiers had been commercially available for four years by this time, contrary to one of Jim's claims, which Jim appears for some reason to have deleted); 2 (c) - it appears that he never tried to reclaim the missing documents (something genuinely impartial researchers would have asked him about closely, and something White and Armstrong of course didn't do); 2 (d) - and in any case the records would have been obtained not by the FBI but by the local police, acting on behalf of the Attorney General. None of those points include the assumption that there was only one Oswald, as Sandy suggested. P.S. Jim Hargrove disagrees with point 2 (a) above. He will find Greg Parker's view explained here: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209-dear-jim#33556 I look forward to reading Jim's discussion of this and other matters with Greg. We all know how keen Jim is to debate this particular topic.

Sandy Larsen writes: The list Sandy came up with does contain an example of circular reasoning. But it is a misrepresentation of what Greg wrote. Greg's argument does not, as Sandy claims, begin with the assumption that there was only one Oswald. It does not contain any circular reasoning. Sandy has Greg's premise and conclusion the wrong way round. Look at Sandy's point 4: "Therefore Kudlaty was wrong about the Stripling school records." Sandy's "therefore" refers to his assumption in point 3: "Since there was only one Oswald." But that isn't what Greg claimed. That assumption is Sandy's, not Greg's. Greg pointed out reasons to doubt that Kudlaty was correct. The implied conclusion, that Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers, followed from, and did not precede, his demonstration that there were good reasons to doubt that Kudlaty was correct. It isn't that difficult to understand, surely? If Sandy genuinely can't grasp the point, and needs to examine it further, he can find it explained here: - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209-dear-jim - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2208-dear-sandy If, after further examination, Sandy still thinks he can see evidence of circular reasoning, he should quote here the relevant passages in Greg's posts, so that we can see exactly what he's going on about. Better still, Sandy should discuss the matter with Greg himself, if he's brave enough. Once he's done that (and I'd pay good money to see it), he should contact that elusive investigative journalist and let us know exactly what the journalist thinks of the evidence for the 'Harvey and Lee' theory. Here is a more accurate version of Sandy's numbered list, with Sandy's circular reasoning removed: 1 - If Kudlaty is right, then Oswald attended Stripling. 2 - There are, however, good reasons to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong. 3 - If Kudlaty was wrong, a good deal of the evidence placing Oswald at Stripling vanishes. 4 - If Oswald was not at Stripling, yet another piece of evidence for the 'Harvey and Lee' theory turns to dust. 5 - With the disappearance of yet another 'Harvey and Lee' talking point, there is even less reason to doubt the default setting: that there was only one Oswald and that he wasn't part of a top-secret long-term doppelganger project that was partly thought up by some crazy guy who believed that the moon landings were faked.

Sandy also writes: Part of the reason might be that you haven't yet been accused of assassinating a president, thereby attracting moon-landings-crazy cranks who are motivated to delve deeply into old documentary records, and to put unlikely interpretations on ambiguities in those documents, and to interview witnesses several decades after the event when their memories may not be reliable, and to misrepresent their personal connections with those witnesses, and do any of the other things that characterise our intrepid 'Harvey and Lee' detectives, Jack "no planes hit the World Trade Center" White and John "I deliberately withheld information which disproved my theory" Armstrong. On that last point, does Sandy have a credible explanation for Armstrong's failure to mention the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave? I've asked Jim many times for his view, and he has run away each time. I think we can conclude from Jim's prolonged silence that he admits that Armstrong was being dishonest in deliberately misleading his readers. What's Sandy's explanation for Armstrong's behaviour? Does he agree with Jim that Armstrong was being dishonest? Or if Jim doesn't want people to think that, would he be kind enough to give us an alternative explanation for Armstrong's behaviour? There's another question Jim has so far been unable to answer, one that Sandy may also be able to help us with. Jim claimed that the FBI "altered a document or two" relating to Oswald's mastoidectomy. I've asked Jim several times to provide evidence to justify his claim, but he can't even specify which documents he was talking about, let alone demonstrate what it is about the documents that makes him think they have been altered. Does Sandy know which documents he was talking about? Jim was just making stuff up, wasn't he? It's an example of the old 'Harvey and Lee' tactic: whenever you come across a piece of evidence that contradicts your theory, simply declare that it's a fake. You can't lose! You're free to spout any old nonsense! It's the same tactic creationists use when they come up against the fossil record. It's a fake! If Sandy is genuinely concerned about logical fallacies, he could start by requiring his fellow believers to provide evidence to support their frequent claims of fakery.

Sandy continues: Sandy may be having trouble telling the difference between a logical fallacy and a rhetorical device. Take my references to Jack White's crazy beliefs that the moon landings were faked and that no planes hit the World Trade Center. I'm not making the following logical proposition: 1 - Jack White claimed that the moon landings were faked. 2 - This claim is strongly contradicted by the totality of the relevant evidence. 3 - Therefore his other claim, that Oswald was a pair of doppelgangers and one of them had a 13-inch head and each of the doppelgangers had a doppelganger mother named Marguerite, is also mistaken. Or whatever it is that Sandy thinks I'm saying. What I'm doing is pointing out to casual readers that Jack White was a 100% tin-foil hat-wearing fruitcake and that they need to bear this in mind when assessing some of the other claims he made, in particular his claim that Oswald was a pair of doppelgangers and one of them had a 13-inch head. I can understand why Jack White is an embarrassment to 'Harvey and Lee' believers. But it is surely worth bringing to people's attention the fact that a heavily evangelised belief system was partly invented by some guy who was completely off his rocker. That's especially the case when the belief system in question makes so many claims that might strike rational people as perhaps a little unlikely: - Two unrelated boys from different parts of the world were selected for a top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme, and somehow they turned out to look virtually identical more than a decade later? Hmm. - Both doppelgangers were arrested in the same building at the same time, and they decided to give the game away by each telling the cops that his name was Oswald, but none of the cops noticed that they had arrested two identical young white men with the same name in the same building at the same time, despite these arrests being central to the biggest news story Dallas had ever seen? Hmm. - Each doppelganger had a mother named Marguerite, and the two Marguerites looked virtually identical too, apart from their eyebrows? Hmm. - One of the Oswald doppelgangers and one of the Marguerite doppelgangers vanished into thin air immediately after the assassination, and the followers of this belief system don't find this at all curious and don't bother trying to locate either the missing Oswald doppelganger or the mising Marguerite doppelganger? Hmm. - And so on. The guy who came up with this stuff thought the moon landings were faked, did he? Hmm. I don't spend much time repeating arguments that have been made umpteen times before, arguments which can be found easily by anyone who knows how to follow a link on a web page, as I pointed out in my previous post. But, in case Sandy hasn't noticed, I have recently been arguing against one particular part of the 'Harvey and Lee' belief system, the claim by John Armstrong that the body in Oswald's grave was that of a doppelganger who had not undergone a mastoidectomy. We know that Armstrong's claim was false, because there is solid scientific evidence that the body in the grave had indeed undergone a mastoidectomy. The imaginary biographies of Armstrong's (and White's) doppelgangers are central to the 'Harvey and Lee' belief system; and central to those imaginary biographies is the question of which doppelganger was allocated Oswald's mastoidectomy. The fact that the body in the grave had not undergone a mastoidectomy showed that the belief system was false.

Sandy Larsen writes: Ah, the false 'circular reasoning' claim again. Here's Greg Parker's argument about the school records, according to Sandy: But that isn't Greg's argument at all. That's a blatant misrepresentation by Sandy. Greg's actual argument goes something like this: There are several reasons to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong about handing over copies of Oswald's school records to the FBI. He made no statements about the matter until White (whom Kudlaty had known, a pertinent fact that went unmentioned) and Armstrong got in touch with him several decades after the assassination. Kudlaty is unlikely to have had access to Oswald's school records, for several reasons: they are likely to have been stored elsewhere, at the school district office, not at the school itself; he did not take the elementary precaution of asking for a receipt or making copies of those records (and copiers had been commercially available for four years by this time, contrary to one of Jim's claims, which Jim seems for some reason to have deleted); it appears that he never tried to reclaim the missing documents (a failure which genuinely impartial researchers would have asked him about closely, and something White and Armstrong of course didn't do); and in any case the records would have been obtained not by the FBI but by the local police, acting on behalf of the Attorney General. I would urge anyone who is interested in the matter to read Greg's account, which goes into more detail and which you can find at https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2208-dear-sandy and https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209-dear-jim, and not rely on Sandy's misrepresentation of it. Similar advice applies to any future claims by Sandy about what Greg or anyone else says: look it up from the original source, and don't trust Sandy's account. I would also urge anyone who wants to debate this particular point to do so with Greg. Signing up for his forum is free of charge and open to anyone (or almost anyone; see the Mission Statement at https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/c1-assassinations ). Indeed, Sandy Larsen and Jim Hargrove have each been invited to sign up, but for some reason neither of them has yet worked up the courage to do so, despite expressing a strong interest in debating this point. A fellow 'Harvey and Lee' believer, James Norwood, was brave enough to sign up. Come on, boys! You can do it! One warning: although James Gordon may be happy for the Education Forum to be used as a dumping ground for endless quantities of 'Harvey and Lee' spam, Greg may not be quite so accommodating. Contrary to Sandy's claim, there's no circular reasoning involved, but there are good reasons to suppose that Kudlaty was wrong about the Stripling school records.

Wow! The school records turn out to be yet another of those 'Harvey and Lee' talking points that has a perfectly ordinary, everyday explanation. Quelle surprise! If there are two ways to explain the evidence, which one should you choose? The everyday explanation or the one in which two unrelated boys from different parts of the world were chosen at a young age for a top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme, and they magically ended up looking virtually identical more than a decade later, and each of them had a doppelganger mother, and one of them had a 13-inch head? If you choose the far-fetched explanation, you will become a laughing stock, like Jack "the moon landings were faked" White, co-creator of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory.* It's not surprising that Jim doesn't want to be told this by a reputable journalist (although that phrase may sound like an oxymoron, there are some around). The journalist would ask Jim some uncomfortable questions, and wouldn't be impressed by Jim's habit of changing the subject every time he finds himself backed into a corner, as we saw a few pages ago when Jim was unable to provide evidence to support his claim that certain unidentified documents, like every other piece of evidence that contradicts the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense, had been faked by the FBI. We know roughly how the journalist would proceed, because a recording exists of an absolutely guaranteed 100% genuine interview with a 'Harvey and Lee' believer (WARNING - MAY HAVE BEEN FAKED BY THE FBI): https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1582-harvey-and-lee-cult-the-interview * To clear up any confusion: Jack "the moon landings were faked" White and Jack "no planes hit the World Trade Center" White were not a pair of imaginary doppelgangers, as you might think, but were in fact the same real-life person: Jack "I helped to invent the 'Harvey and Lee' theory" White. Jack "I helped to invent the 'Harvey and Lee' theory" White was also the same person as Jack "my paranoid speculations allow the media to portray even rational critics of the lone-nut theory as a bunch of crackpots" White.

Jonathan Cohen writes: Thanks, Jonathan. Let's see what Jim and the boys come up with next to avoid facing up to the many inadequacies and contradictions in their fantastical theory. Jim likes copying and pasting, so let's see if this gets a reply out of him: Come on, Jim. Why did John Armstrong fail to mention the mastoidectomy defect? It certainly looks as though he was deliberately misleading his readers, doesn't it?

Sandy also writes: On the contrary, Jeremy has raised several other problems with the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense. See, for example, Exhibit A above. Why have I been concentrating on the mastoidectomy issue? Because it forms one of the biggest gaping holes in the 'Harvey and Lee' theory: - Armstrong's theory relies on taking various aspects of Oswald's life and parcelling them out between two imaginary doppelgangers. The question of which of Armstrong's imaginary doppelgangers would be allocated Oswald's mastoidectomy is a central element of the theory, not some trivial detail. Evidence from reputable scientists shows that this central element of the theory is false. Armstrong claimed that the body in the grave was that of the imaginary doppelganger who had not undergone a mastoidectomy. But the scientists' report demonstrates that the body in the grave had indeed undergone a mastoidectomy. That by itself should be enough to dismiss the long-term doppelganger theory (or at least Armstrong's version of it) as a fantasy. - The mastoidectomy issue shows that the long-term doppelganger theory was false even before the holy book was published. The scientists' report was published in 1984; Harvey and Lee, in 2003. Any theory that gets debunked two decades before its foundational text is published is, to put it politely, not worth taking seriously. - It shows that Armstrong deliberately withheld from his readers information that showed his theory to be false. He knew that the exhumation report contained evidence that the body in Oswald's grave had undergone a mastoidectomy, and he knew that this contradicted a central part of his theory, namely the biographies of his two imaginary doppelgangers. But he didn't tell his readers, presumably hoping that they wouldn't notice. This was clearly, as Jim's silence on the matter confirms, less than entirely honest. That's unless Jim can think of a convincing alternative explanation, of course, but he's had plenty of chances and he hasn't come up with anything yet. Now that we've returned to the matter at hand, it's worth noting that a schism has appeared among the faithful. The prophet Armstrong (praise his name!) declared long ago that Oswald's mastoidectomy belonged to imaginary doppelganger A. But Jim has evidently accepted that the scientists' report over-rules Armstrong's pronouncement. Jim has made it clear that he thinks the mastoidectomy should be handed over to imaginary doppelganger B, although he has merely asserted this rather than actually put forward any evidence to support his claim. Sandy, on the other hand, is hinting that both of the imaginary doppelgangers may have undergone mastoidectomy operations. Of course, no evidence has been put forward to justify this speculation either. But it will be interesting to see if Sandy continues down this heretical route. I dread to think what John Butler, the "Copernicus of the conspiratorial", who thinks there may have been at least three Oswalds, comes up with. Armstrong have mercy on us! I'm sure this schism will be front-page news in the next edition of the Doppelganger Fan Club's next quarterly newsletter (two copies of each issue per member).

Sandy Larsen writes: Circular reasoning? I'd guess Sandy objects to my treatment of the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense as something that is yet to be proved. But surely the default setting is that, until proved otherwise, Lee Harvey Oswald was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers, and his mother was one person and not a pair of doppelgangers. In the same way, surely the default setting with regard to the moon landings is that they were not faked. And so far, after many years of trying, 'Harvey and Lee' believers have not come close to demonstrating that their long-term doppelganger scenario is justified, or that the moon landings were faked (as Jack White, co-creator of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, believed). Until convincing evidence emerges (unlikely, since people have been looking for decades and haven't come across any yet), the doppelgangers were imaginary, Oswald was one person, Marguerite was one person, and the moon landings actually happened. By "convincing", I mean convincing to a large number of informed, reasonable people. As I pointed out earlier, the jury has given its verdict on that point. Lee Harvey Oswald was one person, not two.

Jim continues: The FBI has indeed fabricated other evidence, but, as I explained earlier, that doesn't entitle Jim to assume that any piece of evidence he dislikes must therefore also be fabricated. Each accusation of fabrication must be evaluated on its merits. If Jim wants to convince anyone that a piece of evidence has been fabricated, such as the altered mastoidectomy-related "document or two" that he has so far been unable to identify, he needs to explain what it is about that piece of evidence that suggests that it might have been fabricated. For example, he could bring up a witness who stated that his or her official statements misrepresented what he or she actually said, as in the case of Victoria Adams. Or he could bring up a signed confession by a member of the FBI's Document Fabrication Squad (Doppelganger Division). Speculation alone, 'Harvey and Lee'-style, isn't good enough, even if it's all Jim has. The clearest instances of fabrication of evidence and intimidation of witnesses were done (and not just by the FBI) in order to incriminate the one and only, real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald, not to invalidate some fantastical invention about long-term doppelgangers with 13-inch heads and their doppelganger mothers. These instances were done to place Oswald on the sixth floor, shooting at Kennedy (as with Victoria Adams's evidence), and on Tenth Street, shooting at Tippit. Of course, both of these poorly supported scenarios are central not just to the Warren Commission's case but also to its close relation, the 'Harvey and Lee' theory.

Jim also writes: But this isn't a court of law, is it? It's a web forum, in which people are able to create links to any piece of evidence that happens to be available online. Other people, whether members such as Jim or casual readers, can follow those links and discover what that other evidence is, if they're interested. All of Jim's talking points have already been discussed and debated, usually many times over. If Jim thinks it's necessary to direct readers to these discussions, he only has to create a link or two. If he feels the urge to re-acquaint himself with criticism of many other aspects of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, of which there is plenty, I'll be happy to provide links. To take an example at random, the notion, beloved of certain 'Harvey and Lee' believers, that one of the Oswald doppelgangers had a 13-inch head, is discussed here: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1412-the-13-inch-head-explained-for-sandy

Jim Hargrove writes: and claims that I But I have looked at other evidence. And, like almost everyone who has looked at the evidence for a long-term doppelganger scheme involving two unrelated boys from different countries chosen at a young age who magically turned out to look virtually identical more than a decade later, I find it at best unconvincing and often laughably weak, largely due to the fact that much of it is based on a combination of decades-old memories, misreadings of documents (as Tracy has just reminded us), preference given to less reliable witnesses over more credible ones, plain invention, and paranoia. If you take away every piece of evidence that has a perfectly uncontroversial everyday explanation, such as the recently disposed-of evidence that Oswald was missing a tooth, you're left with, at best, a handful of anomalies, certainly nothing like the evidence that's needed to support such a far-fetched scheme. To continue Jim's courtroom analogy, the jury has given its verdict. As Bernie Laverick pointed out some time ago, the 'Harvey and Lee' theory has been going for over two decades, and it has still acquired fewer converts than the idea that the Queen of England is a lizard. As evidence that I haven't discussed only the mastoidectomy, I would like to introduce Exhibit A, your honor: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/?do=findComment&comment=407170

Jim Hargrove writes: And that's it. How, exactly, is the report "based on a fraudulent document"? Jim doesn't tell us. What is the "fraudulent document" on which it is based? Jim doesn't tell us that either. It looks as though there was no "fraudulent document", and Jim is just making stuff up again. Merely stating that the FBI altered other documents in the JFK case isn't the same as showing that a particular document has been altered, especially when you can't even tell us which document you're talking about. What is the "fraudulent document" that Jim is referring to? Does it actually exist? Evidently, Document 1 wasn't altered. What about Document 2? This is what Jim has to say: What the exhumation proved was that a central feature of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine is false. That doctrine, based on the carefully worked out biographies of its two central characters, proclaims that the body in the grave had not undergone a mastoidectomy. The scientific report shows otherwise: the body had indeed undergone a mastoidectomy. What the exhumation certainly didn't prove, and what Jim has so far failed to prove, is his assertion that an imaginary doppelganger was buried in Oswald's grave. That's hardly surprising, since the imaginary doppelganger in question was a character in a work of fiction. If Jim wants to challenge 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine by rearranging the biographies of its two central characters so that imaginary doppelganger X rather than imaginary doppelganger Y ended up in Oswald's grave, he needs to provide evidence and argument, not mere assertions. Evidently, Document 2 wasn't altered either. What about Documents 3 and 4? Over to Jim, who copies and pastes the same reply to each document: The documents in question make no mention of more than one Oswald. They refer to one person, the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald, who was indeed killed by Jack Ruby and buried in Rose Hill Cemetery, Fort Worth, only to be exhumed in 1981 and shown to have undergone a mastoidectomy operation, thereby disproving a fundamental element of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine. "Both Oswalds" indeed! That's a fine example of begging the question: the practice of assuming to be true that which you are obliged to prove. It's generally done by people who are dishonest and know exactly what they are doing, or by people who are deluded and don't know what they are doing. Many of these people are peddlars of far-fetched beliefs, and are prone to making assertions unsupported by evidence or argument. I'm thinking of religious fundamentalists, though you may have other candidates in mind. Regarding Document 3, Jim adds: Hartogs clearly interviewed the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald, who indeed had undergone a mastoidectomy at the age of six, and whose body was exhumed in 1981, proving that a central feature of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine was false. Evidently, Documents 3 and 4 weren't altered either. How about Document 5? Was that one altered? All we get is this: Again, Document 5 refers to the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald, who had undergone a mastoidectomy and was not an imaginary doppelganger in a work of fiction. Evidently, none of the five documents I found were altered. Not only has Jim failed to demonstrate that any of them were altered, but, unsurprisingly, he hasn't managed to produce any other mastoidectomy-related candidates for alteration. So much for Jim's unsupported assertion that the FBI "altered a document or two" to conceal the existence of a mastoidectomy that was performed on an imaginary doppelganger from eastern Europe. All of these unaltered documents refer to the mastoidectomy that was performed on the one and only, real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine remains as it was: the body in Oswald's grave was that of an imaginary doppelganger who had not undergone a mastoidectomy. That doctrine is false. The body in the grave had undergone a mastoidectomy. 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine has been known to be false ever since the report of Oswald's exhumation was published in 1984, nearly two decades before John Armstrong's book Harvey and Lee was published. And Armstrong knew it was false, because he cited the exhumation report in his book. As predicted, Jim has also given us an extra serving of "look over there!" and a kind invitation to join him in debating topics that have been covered many times already, here and elsewhere. What we haven't been treated to is a reply to the question Jim is least inclined to answer. Since Jim is a big fan of copying and pasting, here it is again: Jim still hasn't been able to come up with an alternative explanation for Armstrong's behaviour in not mentioning the existence of a mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave. Jim clearly accepts that Armstrong's behaviour was dishonest. Your guru was deliberately misleading his readers, wasn't he, Jim?

I decided to be generous in my previous post, and not ask the one question that Jim really doesn't want to answer. But then I thought, why not ask the question? It has to do with the mastoidectomy, which is the topic Jim brought up with his "altered a document or two" claim in this thread. So I'll ask it, yet again, although I'm not expecting a reply. Let's see what Jim does to avoid answering the question this time. It's the snake-oil salesman question. As I wrote: What's the reason for John Armstrong's failure to mention the mastoidectomy defect? It looks as though he was deliberately misleading his readers, doesn't it? Jim's had plenty of time to think up a less unflattering explanation for Armstrong's behaviour. Still no answer? No alternative explanation? Jim seems to be in agreement: Armstrong's behaviour makes him look an awful lot like a slippery snake-oil salesman. I think it's time for another "look over there!" moment.

This may come as news to Jim, but it isn't up to me to find the documents he needs. He is the one who is claiming that they were altered. If you make a claim, it's up to you to justify it. That's how things work. At least, that's how things work in the rational world. In 'Harvey and Lee' world, you're allowed to just make stuff up as you go along. What evidence can Jim produce to justify his claim? Which documents relating to Oswald's mastoidectomy were altered, and what evidence does Jim have that they were altered? If, as we are all beginning to suspect, Jim is unable to justify his claim that the FBI altered one or more of the mastoidectomy documents, 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine has a problem. According to Scripture, the doppelganger who was buried in Oswald's grave had not undergone a mastoidectomy operation. But according to the scientists' report of Oswald's exhumation, the body in the grave had in fact undergone a mastoidectomy operation. A central element of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine has been shown to be false. Science 1 Scripture 0. Even after I had in fact done Jim's job for him by providing him with links to two documents which deal with Oswald's mastoidectomy, he still refused to answer the question. Let's give him another opportunity. I'm now providing Jim with some new-fangled interwebby links to no fewer than five such documents, so that he can examine the documents at his leisure and decide whether they have been altered. Here they are. Each comes with a handy check-list that Jim can consult when he finally gets around to producing some justification for the claim he made: Mastoidectomy Document 1 Warren Commission Exhibit 2218 (Hearings, vol.25, p.118: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1141#relPageId=148) contains details of the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald's mastoidectomy operation in February 1946, when he was six years old. Was this document altered? Pick an answer: (a) Yes, this document was altered, and I am going to provide evidence to show that it was altered. (b) No, this document was not altered. (c) I am awaiting guidance from above, which will come to me in a vision. The prophet Armstrong will graciously reveal to me, his annointed spokesman, whether or not this document was altered. Praise be unto him! Mastoidectomy Document 2 The scientists' report (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/norton1.htm) of the exhumation of the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald in 1981, which shows that the body in the grave had undergone a mastoidectomy operation, contrary to established 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine. Was this document altered? Pick an answer: (a) Yes, this document was altered, and I am going to provide evidence to show that it was altered. (b) No, this document was not altered. (c) Look over there! Bolton Ford! Stripling! Texas Theater! Mastoidectomy Document 3 Warren Commission Hearings, vol.8, pp.223-4 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=36&relPageId=231) , the testimony of Dr Renatus Hartogs, who had examined the 13-year-old real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald and found that Oswald had "slightly impaired hearing in the left ear, resulting from a mastoidectomy in 1946." Was this document altered? Pick an answer: (a) Yes, this document was altered, and I am going to provide evidence to show that it was altered. (b) No, this document was not altered. (c) Please stop asking me all these awkward questions! It's making me very uncomfortable. I really want to believe in a long-term doppelganger scheme run by all-powerful evil overlords and involving two Oswalds who were unrelated but magically turned out to look identical, and two Marguerites, and extra-large heads, and missing teeth. It fits into my view of how the world works! So what if this far-fetched nonsense helps the media to portray all critics of the Warren Commission as a bunch of crackpots? Who cares about that? Mastoidectomy Document 4 Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, p.592 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136#relPageId=600) , the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald's medical report on leaving the Marines in 1959, which refers to "Mastoid operation 1945" [sic]. Was this document altered? Pick an answer: (a) Yes, this document was altered, and I am going to provide evidence to show that it was altered. (b) No, this document was not altered. (c) Not telling you! I'm a 'Harvey and Lee' believer! We don't need to justify our claims! Our faith is strong! Every single piece of evidence that contradicts our belief is a fake! Praise Armstrong! Mastoidectomy Document 5 Warren Commission Hearings, vol.8, p.315 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=36#relPageId=323) , the testimony of Captain George Donabedian, a military doctor who interpreted the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald's Marine medical records: "in filling out his own forms on physicals, Oswald made reference to a mastoid operation which he had had when he was a child." Was this document altered? Pick an answer: (a) Yes, this document was altered, and I am going to provide evidence to show that it was altered. (b) No, this document was not altered. (c) OK, you've got me. None of these documents have been altered. I made it up. The 'Harvey and Lee' theory is indeed contradicted by solid scientific evidence. Hey, we all make mistakes. At least I'm big enough to admit that I was wrong. Again: which of these documents does Jim think have been altered, and what evidence can he produce to show that the document or documents have been altered? If none of these documents fit the bill, it's up to Jim to produce the ones that he thinks were altered. Or will he come clean and admit that he made up his claim that the FBI "altered a document or two" relating to the mastoidectomy operation? More likely, he won't be brave enough to do that, and his response will be the usual one: "Look over there! Bolton Ford ... er ... Stripling ... er ... I'll answer later, once I've hosted a party ... " etc, etc.

A few pages ago, Jim Hargrove made a claim. I have asked him several times to provide some evidence to back up his claim. He has so far failed to do so. It appears that there wasn't any evidence, and he was just making stuff up. Jim's Claim His claim was that the FBI "altered a document or two" to make it look as though a mastoidectomy operation was performed not on the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald, nor on imaginary 'Harvey and Lee' doppelganger A (as 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine states), but on imaginary 'Harvey and Lee' doppelganger B. Doctrine versus Science If Jim can't demonstrate that the relevant "document or two" were altered by the FBI or anyone else, the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is left with a serious problem. According to doctrine, only one of the imaginary doppelgangers had undergone a mastoidectomy operation, and it was not the one who was buried in Oswald's grave. But the scientific report of the exhumation of Oswald's body makes it clear that the body in the grave had indeed undergone a mastoidectomy operation. A central element of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is wrong. The carefully worked out biographies of the two imaginary doppelgangers, upon which the 'Harvey and Lee' theory depends, are contradicted by solid scientific evidence. Four Options 'Harvey and Lee' believers such as Jim have four options: (a) Claim that, contrary to established doctrine, both of the imaginary doppelgangers had the operation (and provide the necessary evidence to support this claim). (b) Claim that the biographies of the two imaginary doppelgangers can be shuffled around somehow so that the one who ended up in Oswald's grave was the one who, contrary to established doctrine, had the operation (and, again, provide the necessary evidence). (c) Claim that the scientific report was faked, presumably by creatures from the planet Zog or by shape-shifting lizards. (d) Admit that the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, which was partly dreamt up by a fantasist who thought the moon landings were faked and that no planes hit the World Trade Center, is a load of made-up nonsense which is liable to tar every critic of the lone-nut theory as a crackpot 'conspiracy theorist'. Jim seems to favour option (b). But he has so far refused to provide any evidence to support his claim. In fact, he has even refused to identify the "document or two" which he claims have been altered. Jim's "Altered" Documents Let's see if we can help out Jim. I've used the wonders of the internet to provide him with a "document or two" related to the mastoidectomy operation that was performed on the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. Can Jim show us how either or both of these documents have been altered? - Document 1: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1141#relPageId=148 Warren Commission Exhibit 2218 (Hearings, vol.25, p.118) contains details of the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald's mastoidectomy operation at the age of six. Was this document altered? If so, what's the evidence that it was altered? - Document 2: http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/nreport.htm The report of the exhumation of the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald in 1981 shows that the body in the grave had undergone a mastoidectomy operation, contrary to established 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine. Was this document altered? If so, what's the evidence that it was altered? Alternatively, did Jim have any other documents in mind when he claimed that "a document or two" were altered? If so, perhaps he could let us know what they are, so we can check them to see whether they were in fact altered. He could use the wonders of the internet to provide us with links to those documents, if they are available online. Jim's Non-Altered Documents If he can't demonstrate that "a document or two" were altered, he has two options: (i) Admit that the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is a load of made-up nonsense. (ii) Do his usual "look over there!" distraction act to avoid having to admit that the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is a load of made-up nonsense. On the subject of which, Jim's usual "look over there!" talking points have been debated ad nauseam here and elsewhere on the web, as I and others have informed him several times. The information he's after is just a few clicks away, using the wonders of the internet. Anyone who is not yet sick to death of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory (and at this stage, I'd guess that's a very, very small group of people), and who wants to find out more about it, can use this forum's search function or follow some of these links: http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13-the-harvey-lee-evidence https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1588-harvey-lee-links-to-alternative-explanations http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/search/label/Harvey%20%26%20Lee http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/2oswalds.htm http://22november1963.org.uk/john-armstrong-harvey-and-lee-theory One piece of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine which no longer appears in Jim's "look over there!" distraction act is the idea that both of the imaginary doppelgangers were arrested in the Texas Theater, and that each of them told the police that his name was Oswald, thereby giving away the long-term doppelganger scheme (although, strangely, no-one in the Dallas police department seems to have noticed that they had arrested two identical young white men with the same name in the same building at the same time). If Jim wants to debate this topic, or if any casual readers want to see how poorly supported and self-contradictory 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine is, this is a good starting point: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/?do=findComment&comment=407170 Where Is the Evidence of Alteration? Jim's "look over there!" topics have been covered many times, but one topic that hasn't yet been dealt with properly, because Jim has refused several times to answer a simple question about it, is his claim that certain mastoidectomy documents have been altered. Let's see if Jim can at last get around to dealing with this simple question: What evidence is there that the FBI (or creatures from the planet Zog, or shape-shifting lizards) "altered a document or two" relating to the mastoidectomy operation? The Snake-Oil Salesman Question There's another question that I've asked Jim many times. For some reason, he has avoided answering this one also. As I wrote in my previous post: Come on, Jim. Why did John Armstrong fail to mention the mastoidectomy defect? It looks as though he was deliberately misleading his readers, doesn't it?

Yet again, Jim has avoided specifying which "document or two" the FBI "altered" in order to show that the mastoidectomy operation was carried out on imaginary doppelganger Y instead of, as Scripture proclaims, imaginary doppelganger X. There are several documents which have a bearing on Oswald's mastoidectomy. Why does Jim repeatedly avoid telling us precisely which of these documents he thinks were altered? Does he fear that when we go on to examine these documents for evidence of alteration, we would not find any such evidence? Perhaps he himself has already examined these documents and failed to find evidence that they have been altered. I suspect that when he stated he was just wildly speculating, frantically seizing on the first idea that came to him when faced with having to admit the uncomfortable truth that a central point of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine had been contradicted by solid scientific evidence two decades before the cult's holy book was even written. In make-it-up-as-you-go-along 'Harvey and Lee' world, all you need to do is speculate about documents being altered. In the real world, you need to provide evidence that they have been altered. Let's try again: which "document or two" did Hoover alter to show that the wrong imaginary doppelganger was buried in Oswald's grave? Once Jim has informed us exactly which documents he is talking about and shown us evidence that they have been altered, perhaps he could turn his attention to another question that he has been avoiding. John Armstrong appears to have deliberately neglected to mention the existence of the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave. He knew that scientific evidence proved that a central part of his theory was false, and he concealed that evidence from his readers. It makes him look like a shifty snake-oil salesman, doesn't it? Was Armstrong really being as dishonest as he appears? Or can Jim think up an alternative reason for his behaviour?