Jeremy Bojczuk

Jonathan Cohen writes: It makes you wonder who he thinks he's going to convince by repeatedly avoiding awkward questions. Let's bombard them with Scripture until they see the light! Praise Armstrong! Why is Jim trying to make 'Harvey and Lee' look even more like a fundamentalist cult? At the tail end of page 12, I pointed out the five main tactics of the 'Harvey and Lee' believers when confronted by criticism they can't answer: (a) Ignore the alternative explanations that the critics have given. (b) Repeat the claim that has just been contradicted, as though the alternative explanations don't exist. (c) Change the subject by throwing in a few unrelated 'Harvey and Lee' talking points. (d) Try to get the critics banned (copyright James Norwood). (e) Cut your losses, abandon the thread, and start a new one at tactic (b). Sure enough, Jim followed the script in his very next post, just four posts after the one in which I described his modus operandi. I'd guess it's only a matter of time before they cut their losses on this one and start yet another 'Harvey and Lee' propaganda thread. Intellectual honesty! Good luck with finding any of that. The believers know that once they admit a weakness with something as central as the biographies of the two fictional doppelgangers, the whole pile of nonsense collapses. "Actual debate and discussion" is the last thing they want. Incidentally, in the thread you linked to, it only took James Norwood three pages before he went running to the teacher, complaining about someone who had dared to disagree with him. What's the matter with the guy? Why is he so afraid?

Sandy Larsen writes: I'm sure Robert can answer these accusations for himself, but I'd just like to make a couple of points. Firstly, in the pot and kettle department, it takes a bit of nerve for a 'Harvey and Lee' believer to accuse someone else of being an ideologue. The 'Harvey and Lee' cult requires its disciples to believe that persons unknown set up a long-term doppelganger scheme in which a number of preposterous things happened. For example: - two unrelated boys from different parts of the world, native speakers of two different languages, were chosen at a young age in the hope that when they grew up they would turn out to look virtually identical; - and, magically, the two unrelated boys did turn out to look virtually identical a decade or so later, apart from the fact that one of them had a 13-inch head; - and each of the unrelated but virtually identical boys had a mother named Marguerite, each of whom was unrelated but virtually identical to the other; - and one of the unrelated but virtually identical Oswalds followed the other unrelated but virtually identical Oswald around Dallas on the day of the assassination, framing him for the murders of JFK and Tippit; - and the unrelated but virtually identical Oswald who framed the other unrelated but virtually identical Oswald blew the lid on the long-term doppelganger scheme, not only by getting himself arrested in the same place at the same time, but by telling the cops that his name, too, was Oswald; - and one of the unrelated but virtually identical Oswalds, together with one of the unrelated but virtually identical Marguerites, vanished without a trace immediately after the assassination, possibly into the witness protection program, which didn't exist at the time. It's all a bit silly, isn't it? People who question that sort of nonsense are not ideologues. People who proclaim that sort of nonsense are ideologues. Secondly, what was the purpose of the ridiculous long-term doppelganger scheme, in Sandy's opinion? By the way, congratulations to Sandy on his new professorship!

Jim also writes that I Jim has misunderstood what I've been saying. Different aspects of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory fail for different reasons, but the mastoidectomy is noteworthy for two things. Firstly, the fact that the body in Oswald's grave had undergone a mastoidectomy operation proves that the theory John Armstrong put forward in Harvey and Lee is wrong. The biographies of Armstrong's two fictional characters are a central part of his theory. He claimed specifically that the body in the grave was not that of the imaginary doppelganger who had undergone the operation. But the exhumation report showed that the body in the grave had in fact undergone the operation. Armstrong was wrong. Secondly, it appears to show that Armstrong was dishonest. He knew that his fictional biographies were wrong, because in his book he cited the scientists' report of the exhumation. But he went ahead and included the biographies in his book anyway. Not only did he claim to be true something he knew to be false, but he failed even to mention the existence of the mastoidectomy defect, a crucial fact that disproved his theory. By doing so, he misled his readers. Armstrong's apparent dishonesty leads to two questions that have been following Jim from thread to thread, and which he has avoided answering many times: Since Armstrong knew about the defect, he must have misled his readers deliberately. Would Jim agree that this shows Armstrong to be dishonest? If not, what alternative explanation can Jim put forward for Armstrong's behaviour?

We disposed of Sandy's explanation for the existence of the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave. What's Jim's explanation? After two decades of pimping Armstrong's nonsensical theory, Jim has finally noticed that it's nonsense. Well done, Jim! Unfortunately, getting out of this particular bramble patch isn't straightforward. Jim can't just click his fingers and transfer biographical details from one imaginary doppelganger to another. Armstrong's biographies of his fictional characters may have been complete inventions, but he did at least try to create a consistent scheme. He traced the progress of the imaginary doppelganger who, he claims, underwent the mastoidectomy operation at the age of six, from before the operation all the way to the day of the assassination (after which the imaginary doppelganger vanished, but that's another matter). Would Jim be kind enough to explain where, exactly, in each doppelganger's biography John Armstrong (praise his name!) went wrong? How would Jim reconstruct those two fictional biographies to make his own scheme work? According to the single set of medical records,* a mastoidectomy operation was carried out at Harris Hospital in Fort Worth in February 1946, on a six-year-old boy named Lee Harvey Oswald, who lived at Grandbury Road, Route no.45, Benbrook, Texas, and who was the step-son of Edwin A. Ekdahl of that address. Armstrong goes into detail about this period of doppelganger A's life in the first 30 pages or so of Harvey and Lee. How would Jim go about transferring this biographical detail to doppelganger B? What was happening to doppelganger A while all of this was going on? According to Jim, the boy who had the operation was a Russian-speaking eastern European, perhaps a Hungarian refugee, perhaps a Russian war orphan; no-one really knows because the boy entered the US without leaving a trace in the immigration records, as fictional characters tend to do. If this imaginary doppelganger entered the US before 1946, how much time did this allow him to have learned Russian before he arrived? * Source: Warren Commission Exhibit 2218 (Hearings, vol.25, p.118): https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1141#relPageId=148

Jim also writes: Indeed there are. By far the most logical explanation is that the one set of medical records applies to the one person who was exhumed from Oswald's grave bearing a mastoidectomy defect. What makes this explanation the most logical is that it does not require the invention of a preposterous long-term doppelganger scheme in which: - two unrelated boys from different parts of the world, native speakers of two different languages, were chosen at a young age in the hope that when they grew up they would turn out to look virtually identical; - and the two unrelated boys somehow did turn out to look virtually identical a decade or so later, apart from the fact that one of them had a 13-inch head; - and each of the unrelated but virtually identical boys had a mother named Marguerite, each of whom was unrelated but virtually identical to the other; - and one of the unrelated but virtually identical Oswalds followed the other unrelated but virtually identical Oswald around Dallas on the day of the assassination, framing him for the murders of JFK and Tippit; - and the unrelated but virtually identical Oswald who framed the other unrelated but virtually identical Oswald blew the lid on the long-term doppelganger scheme, not only by getting himself arrested in the same place at the same time, but by telling the cops that his name, too, was Oswald; - and one of the unrelated but virtually identical Oswalds, together with one of the unrelated but virtually identical Marguerites, vanished without a trace immediately after the assassination. Take away all that ridiculous nonsense, and you have one person, Lee Harvey Oswald, who underwent a mastoidectomy operation in 1946, was buried in 1963, and was exhumed in 1981, complete with a mastoidectomy defect.

Jim Hargrove writes: To continue the sporting metaphors, Jim's reply is par for the course: (a) He ignores the alternative explanations that have been given. (b) He repeats his claim as though the alternative explanations didn't exist, and ... what's the other thing Jim keeps doing? (c) Ah, yes. When he doesn't have an answer, he tries to change the subject by throwing in a few unrelated 'Harvey and Lee' talking points. These are the actions of a propagandist, not someone who genuinely wants to find out whether the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is viable. The two 'Harvey and Lee' tricks missing on this occasion are: (d) Try to get the critics banned (admittedly, that's usually James Norwood's department). (e) When in trouble, cut your losses, abandon the thread and start a new one, starting again from tactic (b). I fear a brand new 'Harvey and Lee' propaganda thread may be on its way very soon! As for Jim's "missing tooth" claim, I gave links to two threads in which several plausible alternative explanations have been given for the evidence Jim cited. How about actually dealing with the points that were made? Here, for any casual readers who want to find out what happened the last time Jim tried to push his "missing tooth" claim, are the other threads: - http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26512-arguments-against-the-harvey-lee-theory-the-missing-tooth/ - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t227-armstrong-s-magic-tooth-and-the-facts-about-harvey-at-beauregard Jim shows no inclination even to acknowledge, let alone deal with, the alternative explanations. Until he or another member of the 'Harvey and Lee' cult comes up with a convincing reason to doubt these alternative explanations, we are left with one conclusion: there was no missing tooth.

Jim Hargrove writes: Roll up! Roll up! It's time for another trip on the 'Harvey and Lee' merry-go-round! Jim asked exactly the same rhetorical question a couple of months ago on a different 'Harvey and Lee' propaganda thread. Since he is such a big fan of copying and pasting, here is a slightly amended version of my reply from last time: There are plenty of reasons to doubt that Oswald lost a tooth. That's what the infamous http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26512-arguments-against-the-harvey-lee-theory-the-missing-tooth/ thread was all about. That's the thread in which Jim gloated on page 1: The evidence is so strong that it proves beyond any doubt that the real Oswald (or one of Jim's imaginary doppelgangers) had a missing tooth! Unfortunately, it quickly turned out that all the evidence for the apparently "missing tooth" had a perfectly ordinary explanation (in fact, in the case of Oswald's Marine dental records, two perfectly ordinary explanations) that did not require Oswald to have had a missing tooth. You can find out more by reading the thread I just mentioned, or this one: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t227-armstrong-s-magic-tooth-and-the-facts-about-harvey-at-beauregard There is now no good reason to suppose that the real Lee Harvey Oswald (or either of the fictional Oswald doppelgangers) had a missing tooth. One more piece of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine bites, as it were, the dust. 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine also demands that the body in Oswald's grave was that of the fictional doppelganger 'Harvey', the one who had not undergone a mastoidectomy operation. Unfortunately, we have known for decades that the body in the grave, which was of course that of the real and historical Lee Harvey Oswald, had in fact undergone a mastoidectomy operation. The body cannot have been that of the fictional doppelganger 'Harvey', contrary to 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine. A central element of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is contradicted by solid scientific evidence. But we've known that for decades. John Armstrong knew about the mastoidectomy defect nearly two decades before Harvey and Lee was published. He knew his theory was wrong even as he was writing his infallible holy text. All of this leads us back to the question that Jim has so far refused to answer many, many times. Armstrong knew that the pathologists' report contradicted a central element of his theory, yet he failed even to mention the existence of the mastoidectomy defect on the body in the grave. Why did he do this? It was so that his readers wouldn't realise that his theory had been seriously undermined nearly two decades before he published his book, wasn't it? His behaviour makes him look an awful lot like a snake-oil salesman, doesn't it? Or does Jim have an alternative explanation for Armstrong's apparently dishonest behaviour?

According to Sandy, the dog ate one set of medical records, and one of the Oswald doppelgangers might be living in the FBI's Home for Retired Gangsters in Arizona. Hmmm. That sounds plausible. Sandy doesn't know what happened to his missing hypothetical doppelganger. He doesn't know where or when a hypothetical mastoidectomy operation was performed on his hypothetical doppelganger. No-one else seems to know, either. Why does no-one know? Because there is no physical evidence for either of these things. There are no medical records showing that a second Oswald doppelganger underwent a mastoidectomy operation. There is no record of a second Oswald doppelganger who ended up in the witness protection program, or in a shallow grave, or in a nursing home on the planet Zog. What follows is the sum total of the physical evidence we have about mastoidectomy operations carried out on people named Lee Harvey Oswald: 1 - One set of medical records regarding an operation carried out in Harris Hospital in February 1946. 2 - One body, containing a mastoidectomy defect, that was exhumed from Oswald's grave in 1981, proving that that person had undergone the operation. The only conclusion an open-minded, rational person would draw from that evidence is that item 1 and item 2 refer to the same person. Less open-minded and less rational people, on the other hand, might explain the evidence in far-fetched ways, using improbable inventions such as imaginary doppelgangers, creatures from distant planets, and shape-shifting lizards. They could invent a creature from the planet Zog, named Lee ZOG. They could claim that the only set of medical records in fact refers to a mastoidectomy carried out on Lee ZOG. They could invent a shape-shifting lizard, named Harvey LIZARD, whose body, complete with mastoidectomy defect, was exhumed from the grave of the real-life, historical, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald. They could invent a couple of imaginary mother doppelgangers: the dumpy Marguerite ZOG and the slender Marguerite LIZARD. The possibilities are endless! If they had a rationality-challenged friend who thought the moon landings were faked and that no planes hit the World Trade Center, they could write a 1000-page book about their inventions, and call the book Lizard and Zog. The book might earn them a remunerative deal with a TV company for a JFK assassination-related science-fiction cop-buddy series of that name, a sort of paranoia-friendly Starsky and Hutch. Once they've got their remunerative TV deal, they could leave the JFK assassination alone, so that rational people could try to get the case resolved without the risk of guilt by association. Unfortunately for our less rational friends, the default state of affairs is that a human being is one person and not a pair of doppelgangers or a combination of shape-shifting lizards and creatures from distant planets. Until anyone produces proof to the contrary, such as a second set of medical records or a second Oswald with a mastoidectomy defect, one person named Lee Harvey Oswald underwent a mastoidectomy operation in 1946, and his was the body exhumed in 1981.

Let's recap, and see if we can prise answers from the 'Harvey and Lee' believers to the latest bunch of questions that they have avoided answering. James Wilcott James Wilcott's 'Oswald project' contradicts three items of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine: - He implied that Oswald was one person. 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine claims that Oswald was a pair of doppelgangers. - He claimed that his 'Oswald project' began when Oswald was in the Marines. 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine claims that the doppelganger scheme began much earlier, several years before Oswald entered the Marines. - He claimed that Oswald was taught Russian while in the Marines. 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine claims that the Oswald who spoke Russian (either flawlessly or merely well enough to understand what was being said around him, depending on the state of the theory on any particular day) was a native speaker. How would the believers resolve these contradictions? Oswald's Mastoidectomy We have one set of medical records, one exhumed body, and one mastoidectomy defect. Sandy claims that these refer to two people, who each underwent a mastoidectomy operation. In that case, we should have two sets of medical records and two bodies showing two mastoidectomy defects. But we don't. - Where is the missing set of medical records? - Where is the missing body with its mastoidectomy defect? Alternatively, if Sandy is mistaken and these items of evidence actually refer to one person, how do the believers resolve the problem of the wrong doppelganger being buried in Oswald's grave? Also, why did John Armstrong mislead his readers by not mentioning in his book the existence of the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave, a fact that was confirmed by reputable scientists and that debunked Armstrong's theory two decades before his book was published?

James Norwood writes: That's because it isn't. That's why I didn't mention it. Even if, as Wilcott claimed, there was an 'Oswald project', Wilcott himself defined the project in a way that precludes it being part of the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy. As I pointed out, the essence of the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy is a long-term doppelganger scheme involving two boys co-opted at a young age, one of them a native speaker of Russian.* Wilcott specifically claimed that his 'Oswald project' began when Oswald was in the Marines, not several years earlier as prescribed by 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine. Wilcott claimed that his 'Oswald project' required Oswald to have been taught Russian while he was in the Marines, again contrary to 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine, which requires the defector to have been a native speaker of Russian.* Wilcott said nothing about a second Oswald. For Wilcott, there was just the one Oswald, a native English-speaking American who was recruited into a CIA false defector scheme in his late teens and was taught Russian while in the Marines. The 'Harvey and Lee' believers took something that vaguely resembled the far-fetched scheme of their imaginations (CIA; defector), and misrepresented it by ignoring the parts that contradicted their pet theory (one person; native English-speaking American; recruited in his late teens; given Russian lessons). And the passage quoted by James includes absolutely no mention at all of any doppelganger Oswalds, decade-long schemes involving unrelated boys from different parts of the world, or native speakers of Russian*, as prescribed by the 'Harvey and Lee' theory. The unique selling point of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is that there was a long-term doppelganger scheme involving two unrelated boys who magically grew up to look virtually identical (plus all the other 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense I described in my earlier post). If Oswald's name was consistently inverted in the documentary record, one explanation might be that in some instances one or another intelligence agency was doing so for nefarious reasons. But again, this does not imply that any of the 'Harvey and Lee' doppelganger nonsense isn't nonsense. Inverting Oswald's name does not necessarily imply that he was two people; or that his mother was two people; or that the Oswald who defected was a Hungarian refugee or Russian war orphan or whatever other phantom the 'Harvey and Lee' believers conjure into existence next; or that the doppelganger who was buried in Oswald's grave was not the doppelganger who had undergone a mastoidectomy operation, thereby refuting the 'Harvey and Lee' theory two decades before the Harvey and Lee book was published. In the same way, inverting Oswald's name is consistent with the idea that he was both a shape-shifting lizard and a creature from the planet Zog, but it doesn't necessarily imply that he was both a shape-shifting lizard and a creature from the planet Zog. It is entirely ridiculous. A scheme that lasted a decade or more, involving strangers who turned out to look virtually identical, with virtually identical mothers, all done just to place a false defector in the Soviet Union so that he could overhear what was being said around him. It's tin-foil hat stuff: a preposterous and unnecessarily complex conspiracy to explain a body of facts that have a much simpler explanation. Tell that to an intelligent member of the public who doesn't know much about the JFK assassination, and he or she is likely to think you're a crackpot. You get a gold star for the umlaut, though. * Or possibly a merely competent but less than perfect speaker who was able to understand what was being said around him. The 'Harvey and Lee' brains trust doesn't appear to have reached a conclusion on that point of doctrine yet, after a couple of decades' deliberation.

Jim Hargrove writes: Seriously? Perhaps Jim can tell us how he managed to start from here: and end up here: There was no implication that Jim was "here under a false identity" or anything of the sort. The point I made was that using James Wilcott to support the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense can't be excused on the grounds of ignorance, since Wilcott's HSCA testimony was transcribed by Jim himself. I wondered, in jest, whether the Jim Hargrove who transcribed the testimony was not the Jim Hargrove we all respect for his skeptical attitude to blatant nonsense, but a different, doppelganger Jim Hargrove, who was ignorant of the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense and thus wouldn't have been aware that Wilcott contradicted essential elements of the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy. It's a play on the doppelganger concept. Jim likes his doppelgangers. I think Jim needs to get on the waiting list for a sense of humour transplant.

Sandy Larsen writes: What we actually have is this: (a) Medical records for one mastoidectomy operation carried out on one person named Lee Harvey Oswald. (b) One mastoidectomy defect on one exhumed body that had been buried under the name of Lee Harvey Oswald. That's one operation, one defect, one body, and one name. If, as Sandy speculates, items (a) and (b) refer to two different people, two important items of evidence are missing, namely: 1 - The body of Lee Harvey Oswald Doppelganger A, complete with mastoidectomy defect, the subject of the medical records in item (a). 2 - Medical records for a mastoidectomy operation carried out on Lee Harvey Oswald Doppelganger B, the exhumed body in item (b). If Sandy's speculation is correct, we ought to have physical evidence for two operations, two defects, and two bodies. But we only have one of each. Where are the missing medical records? Where is the missing body?

James Norwood writes: James Wilcott's phrase 'Oswald project' was appropriated by the 'Harvey and Lee' belief system and given a new meaning involving a long-term doppelganger scheme. In his appearance before the HSCA, Wilcott explained what his 'Oswald project' involved: Wilcott said and implied nothing about doppelgangers at all, let alone: - that a long-term doppelganger project was set up involving two unrelated boys from different parts of the world who were chosen at a young age in the hope that they would turn out to look virtually identical a decade or more later; - or that the boys did magically turn out to look virtually identical; - or that each boy had a virtually identical mother named Marguerite Oswald; - or that one of the boys had a 13-inch head; - or that one of the boys followed the other around Dallas on the day of the assassination to frame the other for the murders of JFK and Tippit; - or that both of the Oswald doppelgangers got themselves arrested in the Texas Theater and each told the cops that his name was Oswald, thereby giving the game away; - or that one of the Oswald doppelgangers and one of the Marguerite doppelgangers disappeared from the face of the earth immediately after the assassination; - or any of the other far-fetched speculation that makes up the 'Harvey and Lee' theory. James Wilcott said nothing about any of that. Wilcott certainly never claimed, as John Armstrong did, that one of the Oswald doppelgangers had undergone a mastoidectomy operation and that the other doppelganger was the one buried in Oswald's grave, despite knowing that this claim was untrue, the claim having been debunked by Oswald's exhumation two decades before Armstrong wrote his book. Tracy Parnell has written an informative article about James Wilcott, which includes links to Wilcott's HSCA testimony in which Wilcott mentions the 'Oswald project' and explains what he meant by the term: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html Here's Wilcott's testimony: http://www.jfklancer.com/Wilcott.html There's even less excuse for the 'Harvey and Lee' believers to misrepresent Wilcott when you consider that the above version of his HSCA testimony was prepared by the 'Harvey and Lee' belief system's Chief Evangelist, a Mr Hargrove (unless our Mr Hargrove is actually one item in a pair of doppelgangers). Here's Wilcott's unpublished manuscript, 'The Kennedy Assassination': https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=260#relPageId=9 On pages 16 and 17, Wilcott writes: Two aspects of Wilcott's account specifically contradict 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine: - He claims that Oswald was recruited while in the Marines during his late teens, not as a young boy as part of a long-term doppelganger scheme. - He claims that Oswald was taught Russian while in the Marines. 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine, on the other hand, claims that the Oswald doppelganger who defected was a flawless, native speaker of Russian (or a very good speaker, or a moderately good speaker; they can't seem to agree), and certainly not a native English-speaking American who was taught Russian in the Marines. In short, James Wilcott said nothing about doppelganger Oswalds, and specifically contradicted two other important elements of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine. - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2248-deceptions-and-errors-of-fact-the-early-lives-of-harvey-and-lee - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2250-deceptions-and-errors-of-fact-frank-wisner-and-world-war-ii-refugees There's plenty more information about the 'Harvey and Lee' theory here: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13-the-harvey-lee-evidence

Sandy Larsen writes: [Slaps forehead] I have a theory that the person known to history as Lee Harvey Oswald was in fact two different entities: a shape-shifting lizard who underwent a mastoidectomy operation at Harris Hospital in 1946, and a creature from the planet Zog who took human form, then had a mastoidectomy operation before being beamed down to Earth, and was later buried in Oswald's grave in Fort Worth. And lo and behold! The evidence of the medical file and the exhumation report prove my case! The medical file shows that Oswald was a shape-shifting lizard, and the exhumation report shows that he was also a creature from the planet Zog! That's two Oswalds: a shape-shifting lizard and a creature from the planet Zog! Now, some cynics might object to this, on the grounds that the evidence can be explained perfectly well as applying to one human being: the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. They would say that I'm making it all up, creating a far-fetched fantasy to satisfy my paranoid view of the world, just like a 'Harvey and Lee' believer. But it's true! On a serious note, the question I was asking was: where is the second medical file, the one for the second mastoidectomy operation? So far, we have documentary evidence for one mastoidectomy operation, and one body that had undergone a mastoidectomy operation. If you want to claim that the only body is not that of the person to whom the only medical file applies, let's see the documentary evidence for the operation that was carried out on that body: - What's the name of the hospital? - What's the name of the surgeon? - What was the date of the operation? There's nothing. There isn't even a second body.

Jim Hargrove writes: It in [sic] not simply enormous. It in [sic] very weak. That evidence was taken to pieces by Mark Stevens here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/ To avoid dealing with Mark's analysis, the 'Harvey and Lee' believers abandoned that thread and created a new one. Now that their new thread has become contaminated by Mark's analysis, they've created yet another. I suppose it's easier than actually dealing with the points Mark made. Let's remind them of the points Mark made, starting with his account of Robert Oswald and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: (a) The first mention of Stripling by Robert Oswald was in the 31 October 1959 edition, in response to the apparent defection of the one and only, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. Robert was accosted by a reporter while at work. (b) The following day, Robert was interviewed at home. The paper included a statement by Robert that his brother had attended Arlington Heights for a year, but did not mention Stripling. Presumably the paper would have mentioned Stripling if Robert had done so. (c) The relevant passage from the second article was then repeated word for word in a third article later that week. (d) Mark reproduced six further Fort Worth Star-Telegram articles (from 1962, 1963, 1980, 1999 twice, and 2006) which mention Oswald attending Stripling. Each uses virtually identical wording. Two of the articles (from 1999 and 2006) use the phrase "including awkward teenage years at Stripling Junior High School and Arlington Heights High School". Clearly the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, like every newspaper, was in the habit of recycling earlier reports. (e) None of these articles mentions any pupils or teachers who recalled Oswald at Stripling. (f) A Fort Worth Star-Telegram article from 1992 does mention a teacher who taught at Stripling at the time the imaginary Oswald doppelganger is supposed to have been there: Beulah Bratton, who taught English and journalism at Stripling from the 1940s to the 1970s. Under the headline, "Teacher Recalls Famous Students", the article actually states that "After President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas in 1963, Bratton was asked to do research on Lee Harvey Oswald's family for the New York Times." If an Oswald doppelganger had attended Stripling, and especially if that fact was "common knowledge" as the 'Harvey and Lee' believers claim, there's a pretty good chance Ms Bratton would have uncovered the fact and mentioned it to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, wouldn't you think? But it appears that she didn't. Mark concluded: The Fort Worth Star-Telegram's evidence is next to worthless. It provides only very weak support to the fanciful claim that an imaginary Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling. Stripling is supposed to be the 'Harvey and Lee' believers' strongest area of evidence. The onus is on them to prove their case. How will they deal with Mark's analysis this time? Ignore it? Start yet another new thread? Perhaps they'll come clean and admit that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram evidence really isn't very strong at all. Let's see.

A few days ago, I wrote: Now we know how they responded. Did they finally summon up the courage to admit that the Stripling evidence isn't actually very strong? Sadly, no. Did they at last get around to dealing with the points Mark raised? Sadly, no. Instead, Jim Hargrove created a new thread to pump the same old stuff that Mark disposed of in the thread you're now reading. Presumably the idea is to get this thread to sink into the murky depths of page 2, then page 3, then ... Would Jim or any other 'Harvey and Lee' believer care to actually deal with the points Mark raised?

You are probably aware of the discovery last year of a statement by Oswald that he "went outside to watch the presidential parade" (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25532-then-went-outside-to-watch-the-p-parade/). You are probably also aware that two news films taken within seconds of the assassination show an unidentified figure standing on the front steps of the Texas School Book Depository. You will certainly be aware of what would happen if the figure were to be identified confidently as Oswald. Now you can do something to help determine whether or not Oswald did go outside to watch the parade. You can force the relevant authorities to make (or allow others to make) high-quality scans of frames from original or early copies of the Darnell and Wiegman films which are not currently available to the public. Each signature to the petition sends an email to NBC and the National Archives and Records Administration. You can sign the petition here: https://gregrparker.com/dowloads/petitions/ Here's the text of the petition: This is a chance for you to make a difference: https://gregrparker.com/dowloads/petitions/

Jim Hargrove writes: Jim will be pleased to learn that his friend from down under, Greg Parker, is providing plenty of honest scrutiny of the hardlylee.nut website: - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2248-deceptions-and-errors-of-fact-the-early-lives-of-harvey-and-lee - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2250-deceptions-and-errors-of-fact-frank-wisner-and-world-war-ii-refugees - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2252-deceptions-and-errors-of-fact-1947 There may be more to come, and each of these may well be updated and added to in the future. Jim must keep his eyes peeled and be sure to thank Greg for his really appreciated scrutiny. Of course, if there's anything Jim disagrees with, we'll look forward to seeing him join Greg's forum to debate him there.

Mark Stevens writes: You need to look at things from Jim's point of view, Mark. The 'Harvey and Lee' believers' big problem is that they simply don't have any proof that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling. Of all the documents that might show the existence of the doppelganger, such as student directories, yearbooks, report cards, and photographs both official and unofficial, none have yet been discovered, although John Armstrong would surely have looked hard to find them. All the evidence they've put forward has a perfectly plausible alternative explanation: easily understandable mistakes, and decades-old recollections. What can they do apart from misrepresent you, ignore your criticism while posting the same stuff over and over and over again, and finally change the subject? Well, I suppose they could be honest about it, and write something like this: Rather than acknowledge the weakness of their evidence, we get this sort of thing, in this case from Jim: Stating as a fact that which he needs to prove! No doubt this will be followed by the usual copy-and-paste regurgitation of the same stuff Mark and others have already shown to be flimsy. It makes you wonder why they bother. If their goal is to attract casual readers to their cause, they are going about it in quite the wrong way. There can't be many casual readers who haven't seen through the 'Harvey and Lee' believers' tactics. Stripling is supposed to be their strongest area of evidence. If it's so strong, let's see them deal honestly with Mark's criticism: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/ As Mark writes:

James Norwood writes: Some time ago, James wrote: James seems to understand the words 'bias' and 'impartially' to mean something along the lines of 'fails to swallow nonsense uncritically'. Perhaps, if I find the time, I'll see what I can do, if only to try and prise a straight reply out of James. I'm not optimistic that such a thing is possible, though. Mark Stevens tried that, and got this reply: Before all of that, James's response to criticism was to try to get his critics banned. Then he created a new thread to sink the one in which Mark sank the 'Harvey and Lee' Stripling nonsense. Now, James's latest response to Mark's criticism is to misrepresent what Mark had written. As I say, I'm not optimistic that I'd get a straight reply. How about James gets the ball rolling by actually addressing the points Mark made? After all, the Stripling evidence is supposed to be the 'Harvey and Lee' believers' strongest suit. You might think they would be keen to address the criticism fully and honestly, without omission and misrepresentation. As it happens, I have already dealt with one part of James's response to Mark's analysis. My post on page 8 (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26644-the-far-reaching-influence-of-%E2%80%9Charvey-and-lee%E2%80%9D/?do=findComment&comment=425574) deals with the newspaper articles. So far, James hasn't replied. For his benefit, or that of any other 'Harvey and Lee' believers who may wish to participate, I've reproduced my comment on the thread to which it really belongs: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/?do=findComment&comment=425888

Jim Hargrove writes: I'm not sure the word 'disproved' is the right one to use here. Until Jim and his friends come up with something substantial, there's nothing to disprove. After all, the burden of proof is on them. As for a "retraction" and a "published indication", newspapers aren't in the habit of correcting trivial mistaken recollections that harm no-one. The critics don't need to prove anything. All they need to do is provide plausible alternative explanations. They have done so for the newspaper articles: Robert Oswald was mistaken. In 'Harvey and Lee' world, Robert Oswald was in on the top-secret long-term doppelganger plot, and would have been told by his all-powerful evil overlords that his imaginary eastern European doppelganger 'brother' had attended Stripling. But in the real world, Robert Oswald had no all-powerful evil overlords to tell him which school his real-life, historical brother, Lee Harvey Oswald, had attended. Robert had been away in the Marines at the time in question, and so he had no first-hand knowledge of the school his real-life, historical brother had attended. Robert might reasonably have assumed that his real-life, historical brother had attended Stripling, since that is what he himself had done, but he would have been making an easily understandable mistake. Again, the burden of proof is on Jim and his friends. So far, they have produced nothing remotely resembling proof that any Oswald, real or imaginary, other than Robert attended Stripling. As Mark Stevens has explained in detail, the evidence put forward by Jim and his friends is very weak: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/ Rather than copying and pasting the same stuff yet again, or abandoning Stripling and replacing it with another 'Harvey and Lee' talking point, perhaps Jim could actually deal with the points Mark has made. Jim also writes: What Stripling experiences? In the absence of proof to the contrary, the only Oswald who attended Stripling was Robert. Whose experiences could he compare his with? One of the Marguerite Oswald doppelgangers?

Sandy Larsen writes: Sandy appears to believe not only that there were two Oswald doppelgangers but that each doppelganger had undergone a mastoidectomy operation. Burn the heretic! Scripture makes it clear that only one of the imaginary doppelgangers had undergone a mastoidectomy operation. Scripture also makes it clear that the imaginary doppelganger who had undergone the operation was not the imaginary doppelganger who was buried in Oswald's grave: Sandy must not blatantly contradict the Holy Word of the prophet Armstrong! The infallible prophet has failed to find any documentary evidence of a mastoidectomy operation carried out on the other imaginary doppelganger! Sandy too has failed to produce any such documentary evidence! Scripture tells us that there were two doppelgangers but only one mastoidectomy operation! Repent, Sandy! Accept the word of the prophet Armstrong! Back in the real world, the evidence of a mastoidectomy defect* on the body in Oswald's grave disproved Armstrong's far-fetched theory two decades before Harvey and Lee was published. * Source: L.E. Norton, J.A. Coffone, I.M. Sopher, and V.J.M. DiMaio, ‘The Exhu­mation and Identification of Lee Harvey Oswald,’ Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol.29 no.1 (January 1984), pp.19–38 (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/norton1.htm).

Mark made several points, so far unaddressed by the 'Harvey and Lee' believers, about Robert Oswald and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: (a) The first mention of Stripling by Robert Oswald was in the 31 October 1959 edition, in response to the apparent defection of the one and only, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. Robert was accosted by a reporter while at work. (b) The following day, Robert was interviewed at home. The paper included a statement by Robert that his brother had attended Arlington Heights for a year, but did not mention Stripling. Presumably the paper would have mentioned Stripling if Robert had done so. (c) The relevant passage from the second article was then repeated word for word in a third article later that week. (d) Mark reproduced six further Fort Worth Star-Telegram articles (from 1962, 1963, 1980, 1999 twice, and 2006) which mention Oswald attending Stripling. Each uses virtually identical wording. Two of the articles (from 1999 and 2006) use the phrase "including awkward teenage years at Stripling Junior High School and Arlington Heights High School". Clearly the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, like every newspaper, was in the habit of recycling earlier reports. (e) None of these articles mentions any pupils or teachers who recalled Oswald at Stripling. (f) A Fort Worth Star-Telegram article from 1992 does mention a teacher who taught at Stripling at the time the imaginary Oswald doppelganger is supposed to have been there: Beulah Bratton, who taught English and journalism at Stripling from the 1940s to the 1970s. Under the headline, "Teacher Recalls Famous Students", the article actually states that "After President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas in 1963, Bratton was asked to do research on Lee Harvey Oswald's family for the New York Times." If an Oswald doppelganger had attended Stripling, and especially if that fact was "common knowledge" as the 'Harvey and Lee' believers claim, there's a pretty good chance Ms Bratton would have uncovered the fact and mentioned it to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, wouldn't you think? But it appears that she didn't. Mark concluded: Mark has shown that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's coverage provides no strong evidence to support the notion that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling. The burden of proof is on the 'Harvey and Lee' believers. Since Stripling is supposed to be their strongest suit, we can assume that they will be keen to put Mark right. Let's see how they respond.

Here are some instructions for working out which photos of the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald are of the fictional character 'Harvey' and which are of the fictional character 'Lee': 1 - Take a coin; any denomination or currency will do. 2 - Toss the coin. 3 - If it's heads, it's 'Harvey'. 4 - If it's tails, it's 'Lee'.

Gene Kelly writes: The strongest reaction was probably the attempt by 'Harvey and Lee' propagandists to get their critics banned. I think we all understand why they reacted this strongly to unwelcome criticism. Those of us who criticise the 'Harvey and Lee' theory do so for several reasons: because it is proven nonsense; because it is heavily but dishonestly promoted; and because it is liable to harm rational criticism of the lone-nut theory. The thesis was proven to be wrong two decades before the Harvey and Lee book was even published, by the evidence of a mastoidectomy operation on Oswald's body. According to Armstrong's carefully worked-out biographies of his two fictional characters, the Oswald doppelganger who had undergone the mastoidectomy operation was not the one who was buried in the grave. But the exhumation in 1981 showed that the body was that of someone who had undergone the operation. Armstrong knew about the scientists' report of the exhumation, and knew that it disproved his theory, but he went ahead and published his book anyway. Not only that, but he dishonestly neglected to inform his readers that the mastoidectomy defect even existed. That's the 'proven' part. The 'nonsense' part comprises, among many other far-fetched things, all the elements of 'Harvey and Lee' that distinguish it from other impersonation theories: the notion that two unrelated boys from different parts of the world were chosen for a long-term doppelganger scheme in the hope that they would turn out to look virtually identical when they grew up; that the boys magically did turn out to look virtually identical; that each boy had a virtually identical mother named Marguerite; that one Oswald doppelganger followed the other Oswald doppelganger around Dallas on 22 November and framed him for the murders of JFK and Tippit; and that one Oswald doppelganger and one Marguerite doppelganger vanished from the face of the earth immediately after the assassination. These ridiculous propositions are all essential elements of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory. It's potentially harmful because it allows rational critics of the lone-nut theory to be depicted as a bunch of crackpots. If the general public got the impression that imaginary doppelgangers were part of the standard case against the official account of the JFK assassination, or that everyone who questions the official account also believes there were doppelganger Oswalds and Marguerites running around for a decade or more, we may as well all give up now, because without the support of the general public the case won't get resolved. If that's the effect it has on you, you clearly aren't looking at the points the critics are making. The only way to decide whether or not "there's substance to the H&L anomalies" is to read what the critics have to say. You could start at the top, with what the 'Harvey and Lee' believers think of as their strongest area of evidence: an Oswald doppelganger at Stripling. Check out what the critics have to say on that topic, and tell us whether you agree or disagree, and on what grounds. If you think we're wrong, it would be good to be told why by someone with his head screwed on rather than the usual bunch of propagandists. Mark Stevens took the Stripling evidence to pieces in this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/