Jeremy Bojczuk

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?

I've replied to the point Jim made. Let's see if he will reply to the point I made. He's avoided it several times, so I'm not optimistic. If he avoids answering the question again, we'll know why, won't we? Jim claimed that Which documents must Hoover have altered? Once we've identified the documents in question, we will be able to judge how likely it is that they were altered. But if there's no good evidence that they were altered, or if Jim is unable to identify any such documents, we will be left with a problem: the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave shows that the operation must have been performed on the wrong imaginary doppelganger, and a fundamental element of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine will be shown to be false. Here is the relevant passage of Scripture: According to 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine, the operation was performed on the imaginary doppelganger who was not buried in Oswald's grave. But according to the scientific report of Oswald's exhumation, the body in the grave had in fact undergone a mastoidectomy operation. The few remaining 'Harvey and Lee' believers must find an explanation for this discrepancy. Jim seems to think that the operation had been performed on the other imaginary doppelganger all along, and that this necessitated the alteration of certain documents by the FBI. But he isn't keen on filling in the details, for some reason. Of course, the obvious explanation for the discrepancy is that the operation was performed not on an imaginary doppelganger at all, but on an actual person: the real-life, historical, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald. Which documents did Hoover alter in order to cover up the operation that was carried out on the wrong imaginary doppelganger?

Jim Hargrove writes: Was I mocking Mr Butler? All I did was point out that What's wrong with that? It's a factual statement. Mr Butler's approach to the photographic evidence is very much like that of Mr White, who would look at a photograph, spot what appeared to be an anomaly, ignore the obvious everyday explanations for the apparent anomaly, and jump to the conclusion that the photograph must therefore be a fake. You can find an example of John Butler's version of Jack White's approach to the photographic evidence on this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25659-mass-hysteria-in-dealey-plaza/ Here's an excerpt of Mr Butler's wisdom, from that page: Mr White used this technique not just in helping to invent the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense, but also in his other main contribution to human knowledge, his claim that the moon landings were faked. That claim has been taken to pieces several times. Here are a couple of examples: - http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/5911-jack-whites-aulis-apollo-hoax-investigation-a-rebuttal/ - http://www.clavius.org/jackwhite.html Even Mr Butler himself doesn't object to the comparison I made. He writes: Jack White was a genuine tin-foil hatter, the sort of person whose far-fetched and poorly supported claims allow the media to portray all critics of the lone-nut theory as irrational 'conspiracy theorists'.

A few days ago, Jim Hargrove wrote: I've asked Jim a question about this statement a couple of times, and he has yet to offer a reply, so I'll try again. Which document or documents must Hoover have altered? It's all very well to point out that J Edgar Hoover wasn't a very nice person, and that the FBI sometimes altered documents and put pressure on witnesses, and all the rest of it. But we can't assume that just because a document in the JFK case exposes the 'Harvey and Lee' theory as make-it-up-as-you-go-along speculation, the document must be a fake. We need to find out whether there are any other reasons to suggest that a particular document isn't authentic, and to do that we need to know which document or documents Jim is referring to. So which documents must Hoover have altered, in order for the mastoidectomy operation to have been carried out on imaginary doppelganger Y (in contravention of received 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine), instead of on imaginary doppelganger X (as John Armstrong claimed, a claim which was contradicted by solid scientific evidence nearly two decades before he published the believers' holy book)? Which brings us to another, more important question which Jim has so far understandably refused to answer several times. Why did John Armstrong not even mention the existence of the mastoidectomy defect on the body in the grave? Armstrong must have known about the mastoidectomy defect, and he must have known that it contradicted a fundamental element of his speculative theory, but he didn't try to explain the contradiction. Instead, he neglected to inform his readers that this inconvenient fact even existed. This deliberate omission must have been done in the expectation that his readers wouldn't be as familiar with the evidence as he was, and that the more gullible of his readers wouldn't be aware that he was misleading them. Is there a credible reason for this behaviour that doesn't make Armstrong look dishonest?

Jim Hargrove writes: If the defector needed to understand what was being said around him, he would have required only a reasonable knowledge of Russian. He would not have required an expert, near-native command of the language. They needn't have sent an imaginary native Russian-speaking doppelganger; they could have sent the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald instead, which indeed they did. The whole idea of the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense is that the doppelganger who defected was an expert speaker of Russian, and one who did not speak with a noticeable accent, as a native English-speaking American almost certainly would. Here is the relevant passage from Scripture: Has there been a change in doctrine? To avoid confusion, perhaps a believer would be kind enough to explain the current, official 'Harvey and Lee' position on a couple of things: Firstly, how well did the defecting doppelganger speak, understand and read Russian? Was he an expert (a native speaker, for example) or was he merely competent (the level you might expect of an American who had learned the language in his teens and early twenties, for example)? Did the defecting doppelganger speak Russian with an accent, or not? Did he make grammatical mistakes, or not? Secondly, how does this level of accomplishment in Russian fit into the long-term doppelganger scheme? In other words, if doctrine still requires the defecting doppelganger to have been an expert speaker of Russian, why did he keep making grammatical mistakes and speaking with a noticeable accent (just as a native English-speaking American would do) even after having lived among fellow native speakers for two and a half years? Or, if doctrine no longer requires the defecting doppelganger to have been an expert speaker of Russian, why invent the fictional doppelganger scheme in the first place? The required level of Russian would mean that the defector could easily have been a native English-speaking American who had learned the language in his teens and early twenties. In this case, Oswald's acquisition of Russian would be just one aspect of his communist-sympathiser façade, helping to make him palatable to the Soviet authorities. Either Oswald learned Russian as part of the plan for his defection, or his independent acquisition of Russian was a happy accident which led him to be chosen to defect. The native Russian-speaking Hungarian refugee / Russian World War Two orphan (delete as appropriate) doppelganger was a figment of a paranoid imagination. It was the one and only, real-life, historical, native English-speaking Lee Harvey Oswald who defected, wasn't it?

John Butler's photographic knowledge and analytical skills make him the worthy heir of the late Jack "the moon landings were faked" White, co-creator of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory. He has even been honoured with his own thread here: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2201-john-butler-photo-analyst-extraordinare

Jim Hargrove writes: The FBI messed about with a camera which may have been owned by Oswald or may have been owned by Michael Paine or may not have been owned by either of them. That proves that there was a top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme involving two boys from two different countries, native speakers of two different languages, who were selected for the scheme at an early age in the hope that they would turn out to look identical! And it proves that the two boys magically did turn out to look identical, except that one of them had a 13-inch head and one of them had a missing tooth! And each boy had a doppelganger mother named Marguerite! And both doppelganger boys were arrested in the Texas Theater within minutes of each other and each told the cops his name was Oswald but no-one in the Dallas police department noticed! And one of the doppelganger boys had been given an unnecessary mastoidectomy operation in a hospital that hadn't been built yet! Back in the real world, there's good evidence that the historical, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald was involved in some way with one or another intelligence organisation. But the idea that he was actually two people, who were members of a long-term doppelganger scheme from an early age, is probably the most ridiculous way to explain this evidence, just as it's the most ridiculous way to explain the evidence that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City and perhaps also in Dallas. Well, it's the most ridiculous explanation that doesn't involve little green men and shape-shifting lizards. There's a discrepancy between a document and the memories of people who were interviewed several decades after the event by someone with a bizarre agenda to promote. That proves that there was a top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme which involved ... well, you can add all the crazy details for yourselves. You've no doubt also worked out the most likely reason for the discrepancy. Not only is the notion of a long-term doppelganger scheme a very poor explanation for events in the life of the historical Lee Harvey Oswald, but it is contradicted by the solid scientific evidence of a mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave. The real, historical Oswald had undergone a mastoidectomy operation; obviously, his was the body that was in his own grave. According to 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine, however, Oswald's grave was occupied by the body of the imaginary doppelganger who had not undergone the operation. The author of the Harvey and Lee book was adamant about this. Unless the few remaining 'Harvey and Lee' believers can produce a reasonable explanation for this discrepancy, that's the end of the road for the far-fetched 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense. But it looks as though they can't agree among themselves on which explanation to go for. In fact, they can't even agree among themselves on how many fake Oswalds there were. Jim Hargrove goes with officially sanctioned doctrine: there were two fake Oswalds. John Butler, who seems to think that almost all the photographs and home movies taken in Dealey Plaza were faked in some unexplained way, daringly claims that there may have been three or more fake Oswalds. Let's see if we can pin them down. Which of the two or three or more fake Oswalds actually underwent the mastoidectomy operation? One of them, both of them, or all three of them? If it was just one of them, which one was it? If you're switching the operation from doppelganger X to doppelganger Y, as Jim seems inclined to do, how do you reconcile this with all the other events that have been allocated to each doppelganger's biography? If, as Jim now seems to think, it was the non-American doppelganger who had the operation at the age of six, where is the documentary evidence that this doppelganger entered the USA before the age of six? Where did the operation or operations take place? Had the relevant hospitals actually been built? Most importantly, where's the documentary evidence for any of this? It's all make-it-up-as-you-go-along speculation, isn't it? On the subject of documentary evidence, let's return to a point I made in my last post. Jim wrote: Which specific documents must Hoover have altered? And what evidence is there that they were altered, apart from the fact that they apparently contradict 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine? Perhaps Jim could finally let us know whether he has come up with a reasonable explanation for Armstrong's failure to even mention the existence of the mastoidectomy defect. This behaviour makes Armstrong look like a charlatan, doesn't it? How else would Jim explain it?

Jim Hargrove writes: So the Hungarian refugee (or Russian orphan, or whatever other made-up origin this fictional character had) must have been settled in the USA with his fictional doppelganger mother by the age of six, when the mastoidectomy operation was performed. What consequences does this have for the rest of the 'Harvey and Lee' fictional narrative? Switching events around so that event A, which was originally allocated to doppelganger X, is now allocated to doppelganger Y, is easy to do if there isn't any actual evidence and it's all speculation. If there is actual evidence involved, this switching around is likely to generate contradictions further down the line, as other events which had been allocated to doppelganger X would also need to be allocated to doppelganger Y, and vice versa. Which other events in the life of the real, historical Lee Harvey Oswald need to be switched from doppelganger X to doppelganger Y, or from doppelganger Y to doppelganger X? It's all made up, isn't it? Which documents, exactly, must Hoover have altered? In 'Harvey and Lee' world, all you need to do is speculate that something happened, and, hey presto, it must have happened. In the real world, a bit more evidence is needed. Perhaps Jim could let us know which documents must have been altered, so that we can see how likely it is that this actually happened. Yes, there are credible claims that some witness statements were interfered with, and that certain witnesses were threatened to change their story or to keep quiet. But the purpose of that was to shore up particularly weak aspects of the lone-nut narrative. You can't go from that to using fakery as an excuse to explain away all the evidence that contradicts the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy. It's worth noting that some of the most credible instances of tampering with witnesses' statements had the effect of supporting, not contradicting, 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine. Victoria Adams's statements, for example, were apparently tampered with to place Oswald on the sixth floor during the assassination. 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine, like its close relative, Warren Commission doctrine, requires Oswald to have been on the sixth floor, firing a rifle at JFK. These days it's really only Warren Commission believers and 'Harvey and Lee' believers who think Oswald was anywhere near the sixth floor (see https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/p1016452-lee-harvey-oswald-s-alibi). That nice Mr Hoover was faking evidence to support the 'Harvey and Lee' theory! There are indeed a number of explanations for the existence of a mastoidectomy defect on the body in the grave. But the ones Jim has put forward are, to put it politely, not very strong. For example, a housekeeper recalled decades after the event that Oswald was given mental tests at a hospital that hadn't been built yet. In 'Harvey and Lee' world, this is transformed into evidence that a secret and unnecessary mastoidectomy operation was performed on an imaginary doppelganger boy just in case his body might need to be dug up several decades later. Hmm ... nothing far-fetched or desperate about that! By the way, it might be an idea for the 'Harvey and Lee' believers to put their heads together and decide, officially, which excuse to go for. Was the operation performed on both doppelgangers, or just on one of them? Were any of these operations performed in hospitals that actually existed at the time, or were the hospitals just as imaginary as the doppelgangers themselves? If there were two operations, where is the documentary evidence for the second one? If John Butler is correct, and there were at least three Oswalds, how many of them were operated upon, and where, and when? By far the strongest explanation for the mastoidectomy defect is the obvious one: the body in the grave was that of the one and only, real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. None of Jim's rather far-fetched and desperate explanations appear to have occurred to John Armstrong when he was writing his book. He must have known about the mastoidectomy defect, and he must have known that it made the carefully worked-out biographies of his two imaginary doppelgangers self-contradictory. The wrong doppelganger was buried in the grave! Far more importantly, Armstrong neglected to mention this fact to his readers. In his 1000-page book, he was emphatic that the doppelganger who had the mastoidectomy was not the doppelganger who was buried in the grave. But he knew that solid scientific evidence existed which contradicted this claim. He didn't try to explain the contradiction. He simply failed to tell his readers that the mastoidectomy defect existed. Why did he do this? It doesn't make him look good, does it? In fact, it makes him look slippery and dishonest, doesn't it? A number of people claimed to have seen Oswald with Jack Ruby in Dallas when he was in fact in New Orleans. Let's skim over the notion that the all-powerful evil geniuses who ran the top-secret long-term doppelganger project would allow one of the top-secret doppelgangers to associate publicly with the man who would go on to shoot the other top-secret doppelganger on live TV, thereby blowing wide open the whole top-secret long-term doppelganger project. Blowing the top-secret plot wide open wouldn't cause any problems, would it? After all, the plot was going to be blown wide open on the day of the assassination anyway, when, according to 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine, both of the top-secret long-term doppelgangers got themselves arrested in the Texas Theater within minutes of each other and each told the cops that his name was Oswald, even though for some reason no-one in the Dallas police department ever remarked on the rather unlikely coincidence that they had arrested two virtually identical young white men with the same name in the same building at the same time, despite the fact that one of those men became world-famous that very afternoon. Before you laugh, we know this happened, because 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine tells us so. Some witnesses made a claim some time after the event. In 'Harvey and Lee' world, that's all the evidence you need. It's solid, 100% proof that there was a top-secret long-term doppelganger project involving not only two virtually identical boys, one of whom vanished into thin air immediately after the assassination, but also their two virtually identical mothers, one of whom also vanished into thin air immediately after the assassination! And one of the two virtually identical boys had a 13-inch head! In 'Harvey and Lee' world, witnesses are never wrong, just as amateurish measurements of 13-inch heads are never wrong and vague accounts of missing teeth are never wrong. These witnesses saw a young white man in Dallas and assumed that he was the same generic-looking young white man who would go on to be all over the news. The man they saw must have been Oswald! Unless it was someone else, of course. Can Jim think of a young white man who we know for a fact associated with Jack Ruby, and who could plausibly have been mistaken after the assassination for the real-life, one and only, historical Lee Harvey Oswald? While he is trying to remember the man's name, perhaps he could answer the following question. What reason can he think of for Armstrong's apparently dishonest behaviour in not mentioning the mastoidectomy defect?