Jeremy Bojczuk

Credit to Sandy for at least facing up to the problem that the exhumation evidence causes for the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory, unlike his fellow believers. Pretty much all we've had from Jim Hargrove are the usual 'but what about this' changing-the-subject data dumps; from David Josephs the usual 'but the bad guys can do anything' paranoia with added personal insults; and from James Norwood, well, nothing, since he seems to have found more pressing engagements after being challenged to a debate. Sandy is claiming that the mastoidectomy evidence has been faked, but that he isn't sure who actually faked it, or when, or how, or indeed whether it was the body or the scientists' report that was faked. Apparently it could have been the scientists themselves who faked their report (as well as the photographs from the exhumation, presumably); or it could have been unnamed members of unnamed official agencies who faked the body, either before or after death, and who then coerced the scientists into keeping quiet; or it could have been little green men from outer space who beamed the body into their spacecraft and replaced it with a clone. Anything's possible. For Sandy (or anyone else) to make a credible case that the exhumation evidence was faked, he needs to provide some sort of detailed account of how it might plausibly have been faked, and by whom. The more detail there is, the more credible the account becomes. You can't just claim it was faked and leave it at that. Of course, there's no actual evidence that anything was faked, just the inconvenient fact that the exhumation evidence invalidates a poorly supported and far-fetched theory. The very minimum that's needed is a list of the various elements that would have been required to fake either the body or the report, or both. Perhaps Sandy (or Jim, or David, or James if anyone can track him down) could provide such a list, so that we can work out how many people must have been involved in this particular plot and how likely it is that the plot could have been kept secret. To get the ball rolling, and because anything's possible, here's one scenario: 1 - News gets out that the body in Oswald's grave is going to be exhumed. Alarm bells go off in the headquarters of the 'Oswald project'. 2 - The chief of the 'Oswald project' calls a meeting, during which various courses of action are discussed. The consensus is that because the official cover story required the so-called 'Lee Harvey Oswald' character to have had a mastoidectomy, the non-existence of a mastoidectomy defect on the body in the grave would give away the two-Oswald plot. It is decided that the body in the grave needs to be surgically altered to show evidence of having undergone a mastoidectomy operation at the age of six, and that the best opportunity to do this is to intercept the body after it is dug up and before it is examined by the pathologists. 3 - On the day of the exhumation, a van containing a fully equipped mobile pathology lab is parked just around the corner from the cemetery. The van contains a specially fabricated coffin that looks and smells as though it has been in the ground for nearly two decades. 4 - Members of the 'Oswald project', disguised as members of the public visiting the cemetery, wait for the real coffin to be lifted from the grave. When the coffin emerges, the 'Oswald project' team stages a diversion ("Look over there!"), the mocked-up coffin is taken out of the van and hurriedly brought to the grave, the original coffin is moved to one side, the fake coffin moved into place, and the original coffin is hurriedly carried out of the cemetery and placed in the back of the van, all without anyone noticing. 5 - Inside the van, pathologists working for the 'Oswald project' quickly dissect the head of the body that had been in the grave. They chip and grind away at the skull, and in no time at all manage to create a fake mastoidectomy defect. They cross their fingers and hope that it looks as though it had been performed 35 years earlier on a living six-year-old boy. 6 - Meanwhile, the mocked-up coffin is loaded into an undertaker's hearse and begins its journey to the site of the scientific examination. Before it can get there, members of the 'Oswald project', disguised as traffic cops, pull over the hearse. While they engage the attention of the people in the hearse, other members of the 'Oswald project' drive the mobile pathology lab van up to the hearse, open the back of the hearse, remove the mocked-up coffin, place it by the side of the road, carry the original coffin (now containing the surgically modified body) from the back of their van and place it in the hearse, and pick up the mocked-up coffin from the side of the road and place it in their van, all without anyone noticing. 7 - The scientific examination is carried out on the surgically modified body, and evidence of a mastoidectomy is discovered. The scientists give a news conference, and later publish an article in which they show evidence that the body had undergone a mastoidectomy at the age of six. There is much back-slapping at 'Oswald project' headquarters. The secrets of the 'Oswald project' are safe again! 8 - Unfortunately, the scientists who examine the body notice that the mastoidectomy defect looks like a modern fake and not something that had been carried out on a six-year-old in 1946. Word of this potentially calamitous development reaches 'Oswald project' headquarters. Before the scientists stage their news conference, members of the 'Oswald project' visit the scientists and persuade them to keep quiet. 9 - Unfortunately, a couple of press photographers are in the cemetery during the exhumation, and they snap the 'Oswald project' team swapping the two coffins around and placing one of them in the back of a van. Word of this potentially calamitous development reaches 'Oswald project' headquarters. Members of the 'Oswald project' visit the photographers and their photo lab technicians, destroy their photographs, and persuade them to keep quiet. 10 - Unfortunately, several motorists, cyclists and dog-walkers, as well as a party of schoolchildren and their teachers, see the hearse being pulled over by the fake traffic cops, and notice the 'Oswald project' team taking one dilapidated coffin out of the hearse and placing it by the side of the road, taking a second dilapidated coffin out of a van and placing it in the back of the hearse, then picking up the coffin that was at the side of the road and placing it in the van. Word of this potentially calamitous development reaches 'Oswald project' headquarters. Members of the 'Oswald project' visit all the motorists, cyclists, dog-walkers, schoolchildren and teachers, and persuade them to keep quiet. 11 - Unfortunately, the carpenters who fabricated the mock coffin on behalf of the 'Oswald project' wonder why anyone would need a mocked-up coffin that looked as though it had been in the ground for nearly two decades. They suspect that their work has been used for nefarious purposes, and they get in touch with a couple of investigative journalists. Word of this potentially calamitous development reaches 'Oswald project' headquarters. Members of the 'Oswald project' visit the carpenters and the journalists and persuade them to keep quiet. 12 - Unfortunately, all of the scientists, press photographers, photo lab technicians, motorists, cyclists, dog-walkers, schoolchildren, teachers, carpenters and journalists talk to their work colleagues, their friends and their family members about the various problems with the exhumation. Word of this potentially calamitous development reaches 'Oswald project' headquarters. The chief of the 'Oswald project', by now a chain-smoking and nail-chewing nervous wreck, calls a meeting. It is decided that there should be a large recruitment drive so that a special department of the 'Oswald project' can be set up. Members of this special department of the 'Oswald project' visit all of the work colleagues, friends and family members of each of the scientists, the press photographers, the photo lab technicians, the motorists, the cyclists, the dog-walkers, the schoolchildren, the teachers, the carpenters and the journalists, and persuade every single one of them to keep quiet. 13 - Unfortunately, a couple of the newly recruited members of the 'Oswald project' are overheard talking in public about their new jobs. Word of this potentially calamitous development reaches 'Oswald project' headquarters. The chief of the 'Oswald project' is discovered crouching in the corner of his office, whimpering. He is sacked. The new chief expands the special department of the 'Oswald project' to include half the population of the United States. The secrets of the 'Oswald project' are safe again! Anything's possible, isn't it? Unfortunately, not every possibility is equally likely. P.S. Just in case anyone catches sight of the elusive James Norwood, here's that invitation to a debate: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1573-invitation-to-dr-norwood

Sandy still seems to be under the misapprehension that quantity beats quality when it comes to evidence. In the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' corner, we have a steaming pile of weak evidence, all of which has a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation. In the opposite corner, we have (amongst other things) scientific evidence which does not have a reasonable alternative explanation. It really doesn't matter how big the steaming pile of weak evidence is, or how badly it smells. It will still get knocked out by the scientific evidence, for the simple reason that there is no reasonable alternative explanation for the scientific evidence. Which of the possible alternative explanations for the scientific evidence does Sandy think is the most credible? - That the scientists, all of them with solid professional reputations, knowingly faked their report? - That the editors of the scientific journal, all of them equally reputable scientists, knowingly published a false report? - That some unnamed Bad Guys managed to fake the report, including its photographs, without the knowledge of any of the scientists and other people involved in the exhumation? - That some unnamed Bad Guys performed an unnecessary mastoidectomy operation on an unnamed boy in the 1940s just on the off-chance that the boy's body might need to be dug up four decades later? - That some unnamed Bad Guys manipulated the body in Oswald's grave to give it the appearance of having had a mastoidectomy, and did such a good job that the scientists didn't notice? - That some unnamed aliens from outer space beamed Oswald's body up from his grave and replaced it with a clone? Which of these explanations does Sandy prefer? And why is there no evidence for any of them? One of those explanations must be the right one, unless the scientific evidence of a mastoidectomy on the body in Oswald's grave is correct. And if the scientific evidence is correct, the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy was conclusively refuted two decades before it was even published. Now Sandy claims that "the Warren Report is to be trusted over the large quantity of contradictory evidence because it is of higher quality". Really? What makes Sandy think that the Warren Report is "of higher quality" than the evidence which contradicts its main findings? I'm sure that Sandy isn't really a lone nutter, even though that is the implication in his statement. I'm sure he understands how far-fetched and poorly supported 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy is. I suspect that in private he regrets having publicly promoted the fantasy, and that he makes unfounded accusations to avoid having to back down in public. I'm sure that, like most readers of this thread, he understands why that fantasy is opposed by rational critics of the lone-nut theory.

"Preponderance of evidence" indeed! That's just a dishonest way of claiming that when it comes to evidence, quantity beats quality. But it's the other way round: quality beats quantity. Strong evidence beats weak evidence, no matter how much of it there is. Every single piece of evidence which has been put forward to support the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy is weak. What makes the evidence weak is the fact that perfectly reasonable alternative explanations exist for that evidence. Human memory is fallible, people make mistakes when filling in forms, the same person's appearance in photographs can change over time and in different lighting conditions, and so on. There are even perfectly reasonable alternative explanations for the claims that Oswald was impersonated and that he was a CIA operative. Neither of those claims require him to have been part of a ridiculously unlikely long-term doppelganger project. Against this weak evidence is a report by reputable scientists, published in a reputable scientific journal, which shows that the body in Oswald's grave had undergone a mastoidectomy operation, contradicting 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' doctrine which claims that the body cannot have undergone such an operation. Unless anyone can produce some unimpeachable documentation which shows conclusively that the scientists' report was false, or that the body in the grave had been tampered with, that's the end of the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy. Here are some questions for the 'Harvey and Lee' cult members: - Do you accept the basic principle that strong evidence beats weak evidence? If not, why not? - If you still don't accept the scientists' report, what is your preferred explanation for it? There has been quite a bit of indecisive squirming on this topic, with suggestions that a fictional six-year-old clone was operated on decades before the exhumation, or perhaps he wasn't and the scientists faked their report, or perhaps they didn't and some unidentified Bad Guys faked it instead. It would be nice if each of the cult members would state clearly, for the record, exactly why the scientists' report can't be trusted, if that's what they believe.

As any frequent reader of this thread will have predicted, Jim is yet again trying to divert attention by changing the subject. Don't look over there at the scientific evidence that refutes the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory! Look over here at some trivial anomalies! Let's keep looking at the scientific evidence. Jim speculates that "the exhumation results were fixed, maybe not by the people involved in the exhumation, but more likely by the people charged with preparing and preserving the evidence" and "it is clear that those results were fixed in one way or another". Where is the documentary evidence that anyone "fixed" the results of the exhumation? There is none. It's pure speculation. In an earlier post, Jim wrote "I’m not necessarily saying that the exhumation was faked, though I don’t rule it out." Again, vague speculation and no hard evidence. He's scrabbling around, trying to find anything that might allow him to avoid admitting that solid scientific evidence has destroyed his irrational belief. Let's see if we can get him to narrow down his list of suspects, and see if he can actually provide some evidence to support his speculative claims: - Was an unnecessary mastoidectomy operation performed on the body in Oswald's grave before that person's death? If so, show us the evidence. If you can't provide any evidence, why does the evidence not exist? - Was an unnecessary mastoidectomy operation performed on the body in Oswald's grave after that person's death? If so, show us the evidence. If you can't provide any evidence, why does the evidence not exist? You might want to ask Sandy to show you the evidence he discovered, since this seems to be his preferred explanation. Unless Sandy didn't discover any evidence, of course, and he was just speculating too. - Did CIA operatives (or some alternative Bad Guys) force the scientists to fake their report? If you think they did, show us the evidence. If you can't provide any evidence, why does the evidence not exist? - Did CIA operatives (or some alternative Bad Guys) fake the report without the scientists' knowledge? If you think they did, show us the evidence. If you can't provide any evidence, why does the evidence not exist? - Did the editors of the scientific journal believe that the article they published was false? If you think they did, show us the evidence. If you can't provide any evidence, why does the evidence not exist?

That sums it up nicely. It's about the quality of the evidence, not the quantity. It really doesn't matter how many witness statements can be dredged up to support the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy, because witness statements rely on memories, in this case very often decades-old memories, and human memory is fallible. You could put forward any number of such witnesses to support the fantasy, or any number of dubiously interpreted documentary records or photographs. It doesn't matter; there is always a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation for this type of evidence. The evidence of the mastoidectomy on the body in Oswald's grave is far stronger than that. It is supported by a number of scientists, all of them with solid professional reputations, whose report was published in a well-known and respected scientific journal. Every alternative explanation for this particular piece of evidence requires far-fetched speculation: - Perhaps the scientists who exumed Oswald's body risked ruining their careers by giving the body a post-mortem mastoidectomy. - Perhaps the scientists deliberately lied in their report. - Perhaps the editors of the Journal of Forensic Sciences were leaned on to publish that false report. - Perhaps an unknown six-year-old Russian-speaking Hungarian refugee boy was given an unnecessary mastoidectomy operation by an unknown surgeon in an unknown hospital on the orders of some equally unknown Bad Guys just in case the boy's body might need to be dug up nearly forty years later. - Perhaps aliens from outer space beamed Oswald's body up into their spacecraft and replaced it with that of his clone. Scientific evidence versus pure unsupported speculation. It is irrational to prefer far-fetched speculation over solid scientific evidence. That's what members of cults do; they cling to their beliefs no matter what. Unless anyone can come up with a reasonable explanation for the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave, the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory is dead.

We've had some interesting suggestions about how to explain the evidence of a mastoidectomy operation on the body in Oswald's grave. The obvious, common-sense explanation is that the body in Oswald's grave was that of the historical, one-and-only Lee Harvey Oswald who, as we know from documentary evidence, underwent a mastoidectomy operation at the age of six. Unfortunately for the members of the 'Harvey and Lee' cult, the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory requires the body in the grave to have been that of a fictional character who had not undergone a mastoidectomy operation. If the common-sense explanation is correct, the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory was conclusively refuted two decades before the theory was even published. Unsurprisingly, solid scientific evidence has defeated a far-fetched theory that's built on nothing but dubious interpretations and decades-old memories. There seem to be three alternative explanations that might be able to resurrect the cult members' belief. Needless to say, there is no specific documentary evidence to support any of the claims. Here they are, in ascending order of incredibility, from you're-kidding-me to you're-completely-bonkers: (a) The Bad Guys who ran the fictional two-Oswald scheme falsified the report of the scientists who performed the exhumation in 1981. The reasoning is that because the government agencies which investigated the JFK assassination appear to have falsified certain pieces of documentary evidence such as witness statements, those agencies were also capable of falsifying a report by reputable scientists which was published in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal. (b) The scientists who performed the exhumation were coerced into manipulating the body in Oswald's grave to give it the appearance of having undergone a mastoidectomy, and were then coerced into keeping the manipulation secret. The reasoning here is presumably much the same as for the previous explanation. (c) Difficult though it might be for the cult members to accept, one element of the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory must be wrong. The fictional Oswald clone who, according to the theory, was buried in Oswald's grave and who had not undergone a mastoidectomy operation must in fact have undergone such an operation at the age of six, just like the real-life Lee Harvey Oswald. The reasoning, if that's the right word for it, is that because the CIA was capable of administering LSD to thousands of people, the CIA or some other Bad Guys were capable of not only looking into the future to identify a six-year-old boy who was going to grow up to look like a completely unrelated six-year-old boy, but they were also capable of looking into the future to anticipate that the boy's body might need to be dug up several decades later, and for that reason they had an unnecessary mastoidectomy operation performed on the boy. That's three far-fetched explanations, each devoid of supporting documentary evidence and each theoretically unlikely in its own way, versus the common-sense explanation that the body in Oswald's grave was that of the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald. There isn't any way to conclusively prove or refute any of these four explanations, unless some of the non-existent documentary evidence turns up, which isn't likely to happen even if the cult members get off their rear ends and start looking for it. All we can do is choose the explanation which best matches our own view of how the world works. Like any rational person, I'd go for the common-sense explanation, the one which happens to destroy the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory. Jim seems to have favoured explanation (c) but, perhaps realising that it makes him look utterly paranoid, is now hedging his bets. Sandy finds explanation (c) hard to believe and has put forward explanation (b) instead. Are there any other members of the 'Harvey and Lee' cult who are willing to state for the record which of the three far-fetched explanations they believe in?

Greg Parker has replied to Sandy's latest post about the school records: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records#20974 Greg writes: <blockquote>We seem to be finally on the same page because this is the interpretation I have being trying to get across all along by repeating that the the Beauregard records incorporate transferred records from PS 44. All that remains now is for you to admit that this shoots the H & L interpretation of two boys at two schools simultaneously right in the butt.</blockquote> As with many other aspects of the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy, there is a perfectly credible, common-sense interpretation of the evidence which renders the theory unnecessary.

Thanks for posting that link, Tracy. Stan did such a good job, I'll have to start thinking about my Oscar acceptance speech. Now, where did I put my bow tie? Sandy writes: <blockquote>If you want to see hard evidence that there were two Oswald's (not mere photos or sightings) I suggest you study Oswald's school records for his fall semester of 8th grade. He attended both Public School 44 in NYC and Beauregard Junior High in New Orleans simultaneously that semester. Of course, it was really the two Oswalds attending the two schools.</blockquote> Greg Parker has offered to debate Sandy on this point: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records#20913 Will Sandy be brave enough to take up the offer? Greg has also offered to debate James Norwood: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1573-invitation-to-dr-norwood If James ever pokes his head above the parapet again, I'd be interested to see if he too is brave enough to take up Greg's offer. I'd also be interested to see if he responds to an earlier post of mine, in which I asked him to produce the evidence which led him to state that I have a "belief in the Warren Report" and "a bias in favor in the findings of the Warren Report". If he can't produce any such evidence, I hope he will have the decency to apologise.

[Interview, part four] Journalist: There's something else I was wondering about. There must be thousands of people around the world with a serious interest in the JFK assassination. Tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands. How many of them have you managed to convert? Cult Member: It must be close to a dozen by now! Journalist: As many as that? Cult Member: Well, we've only been going for a couple of decades, you know. Journalist: If you think about how many really gullible people there are, people with virtually no critical thinking skills at all, who are prepared to believe anything, no matter how far-fetched - that Elvis Presley arrived on earth in an alien spaceship, that sort of thing - it looks as though even those people find your 'two Oswalds and two Marguerites' theory too implausible for their tastes. Cult Member: That's certainly our target audience, but they obviously haven't heard the word of truth yet. Or if they have, they aren't looking at the evidence in the right way, logically and with an open mind. We need to spread the word more efficiently. That's why we've come to you. You can give us the publicity we need. Journalist: Hmm. If your theory has almost no support in JFK assassination circles, it must attract a fair amount of criticism. Cult Member: Cointelpro! Lone nutters! Cointelpro! Lone nutters! Journalist: You think everyone with doubts about your theory is a supporter of the official line, that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy, alone and unaided? Cult Member: Of course they are! Why else would they oppose the truth? Isn't it obvious? Journalist: You know, one of the standard ways in which the media dismisses criticism of the lone-nut theory is to paint every critic of the official line as a paranoid, moon-landings-crazy fantasist. What about those people who say that all of these over-complicated super-conspiracy theories are exactly what the media needs, and that far-fetched, poorly supported theories like yours just bring rational criticism of the lone-nut theory into disrepute? Cult Member: Cointelpro! Lone nutters! Cointelpro! Lone nutters! Cointelpro! Lone nutters! Journalist: OK, OK. Calm down. I was wondering how you deal with all that criticism. Cult Member: Usually, it's best to ignore it and hope it goes away. You see, from time to time some cointelpro lone-nutter will demonstrate how this or that aspect of our theory is wrong. When that happens, we will simply change the subject. Then, later on, once everyone's attention has been diverted, we can bring up the same aspect of our theory again, completely ignoring the objections that the cointelpro lone-nutter brought up last time round. Journalist: Really? Cult Member: Oh yes! Very often we'll just copy and paste the stuff that has been disproved, and pretend that it hasn't been. Copy and paste! Copy and paste! We can do this over and over again! Journalist: That doesn't seem very honest to me. Won't people see through that tactic? Cult Member: Unfortunately they do, yes. Another way to divert attention from criticism is to quote long passages from our holy book. Journalist: If you were serious, if you weren't afraid of being proved wrong, surely you'd be happy to deal with criticism of your theory. Cult Member: I suppose so. There's an online forum based in Australia that gives our theory a hard time. If we weren't afraid of being proved wrong, I suppose we could join that forum and deal with its members' questions honestly. Journalist: I think you should do that. Why don't you? Cult Member: Mainly because that forum is full of rude people who use naughty words, and we're easily offended. Oh, and there's also the possibility that our theory wouldn't last five seconds and we'd become a laughing stock. Journalist: But you are already. Your theory was debunked by solid scientific evidence two decades before it was even published. As laughing stocks go, you lot are world champions. Cult Member: Please don't say that. I really want to believe my theory. It makes me feel better about myself. Journalist: Yes, I was wondering why you are so attracted to an idea which most people would dismiss as far-out paranoid nonsense. Cult Member: You see, this belief in a super-powerful conspiracy fulfills a certain psychological need in us. That's the reason we are incapable of questioning the truth that's revealed to us in our holy book. And if you believe in something strongly enough, you'll do whatever it takes to spread the word. Journalist: Hmm. I'm curious about exactly what your theory has to say about the assassination itself. Cult Member: Oh, nothing at all. Journalist: I mean, how does it relate to the strength or weakness of the evidence against Oswald, or the question of how many shots were fired, or whether it was physically possible for one person to have fired all the shots? Cult Member: Who cares about any of that? ‎This is all about thinking up the biggest conspiracy ever. You see, the bigger the conspiracy, the more likely it is that President Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy. Journalist: But surely, any conspiracy only needed to be large enough to kill JFK and maybe to frame Oswald. There is no need for anything larger. Cult Member: I hadn't thought of it like that. Journalist: It really isn't necessary for the conspirators to have the power to create an extra Oswald and Marguerite, or to have the power to alter all the films and photographs, or to have the power to kidnap Kennedy's corpse without anyone noticing, or any of those other way-out ideas. The more elaborate the conspiracy theory you're proposing, the less likely it is to be true, wouldn't you say? Cult Member: Cointelpro! Lone nutter! Cointelpro! Lone nutter! Journalist: Let's wipe all that foam from around your mouth. That's better. Cult Member: Thank you. Look, it's like I was saying about Oswald being an intelligence agent. If there was a really elaborate scheme, a top-secret conspiracy that went on for nearly two decades in which Oswald and an unrelated boy were controlled from the age of six, that's even stronger evidence that he was an intelligence agent. Journalist: I think it's widely accepted that Oswald had some sort of connection with one or another US intelligence agency. Surely all the extra complication in your theory - you know, the six-year-old boys and the two Marguerites and the top-secret unnecessary mastoidectomy operation in a hospital that hadn't been built yet - actually serves to discredit this idea, to make the idea seem much less plausible. Also, it makes you look like a bunch of crazies. Cult Member: Cointelpro! Lone nutter! Journalist: What I mean to say is, if the general public finds out about your theory, and people start to think that the only way to question the lone-nut theory is to believe some crazy-sounding stuff about Oswald being cloned at the age of six and that there were two Marguerites running around, and all the rest of it, and if they realise that there's essentially no solid evidence to support any of it, won't they tend to dismiss the whole idea that there's something wrong with the lone-nut explanation? Cult Member: Who cares what the general public thinks? Journalist: The only way the Kennedy case will ever be properly investigated is if the general public forces the authorities to do so. For as long as the public can be kept quiet, nothing will happen. From the point of view of the authorities, the general public needs to be neutralised. Your theory is exactly the sort of thing that the authorities would like the general public to associate with the JFK assassination. Cult Member: We don't care about any of that. Look, getting the Kennedy case properly investigated, finding out how it all really happened, doing some serious analysis of how the assassination relates to the functioning of the US political system, all that nonsense, that's not what we're interested in. Our holy book gives us what we want. A really enormous conspiracy to believe in! It gets me all tingly! Journalist: You know, a lot of people suspect that you and similar far-out conspiracy theorists are deliberately trying to undermine genuine criticism of the official line. If I were in charge of undermining genuine criticism, the first thing I'd do is to fabricate as many far-out super-conspiracy theories as I could think of. Then I'd get my friends in the press to report those theories instead of the more credible objections to the official line. Cult Member: No, no! I understand why people feel like that, but we really do believe what we're saying! The world really is run by a great shadowy conspiracy of super-powerful Bad Guys! That's how the world works. There really were two Oswalds and two Marguerites and two mastoidectomy operations! Journalist: OK. [looks at watch] It's getting late, and I really need to ... Cult Member: So, are you going to put our story on the front page, or in a big TV special? Journalist: Umm. Well, I'll have a word with my editor. I'll let you know. Cult Member: Great! Going back to what you were saying about Elvis and alien spaceships, do you want to hear my theory about the so-called moon landings?

[Interview, part three] Journalist: Now, I presume that your theory takes events in the actual Lee Harvey Oswald's life and attributes them to one or other of the two Oswalds, either 'Harvey' or 'Lee'. Cult Member: That's right. Journalist: What happened to the Oswald who had undergone a mastoidectomy operation at the age of six? Was he the one who defected to the Soviet Union, then came back to the US, got a job at the Texas School Book Depository, and was shot by Jack Ruby? Cult Member: No, that was the other one. Journalist: You're sure about that? Cult Member: Absolutely. It says so in our holy book. Journalist: So the Oswald who was buried in Fort Worth was not the Oswald who had undergone the mastoidectomy operation? Cult Member: That's right. It's all carefully set out in our holy book! Journalist: But when the body in that grave was exhumed in 1981, it was found to have a bone defect that was consistent with having been caused by a mastoidectomy operation. Doesn't that fact alone completely invalidate your theory? Cult Member: Oh, no. Because our theory didn't exist then. Our holy book wasn't written until about twenty years later. Journalist: So your theory was conclusively refuted two decades before it was even published? That's quite an achievement. Cult Member: We'd prefer not to think about that, thank you. Journalist: I'm not surprised. Cult Member: If you look at things in the right way, and have a mind open enough to consider all the possibilities, there's always an answer. In the case of the mastoidectomy operation, it's obvious that the scientists who performed the exhumation were bribed or tortured. Journalist: Really? Can you show me some evidence for that? Cult Member: Will you stop with all this evidence nonsense? OK, so perhaps the scientists weren't bribed or tortured. Something else obviously happened. Um ... I know! Their report was faked! Journalist: Wasn't it published in a reputable scientific journal? Cult Member: Ha! You're so naive! Prove to me that it wasn't faked! Go on! You can't, can you? The FBI and the CIA were faking documents all the time. You just have to look at the evidence in the right way, with an open mind. Journalist: If you say so. Cult Member: Look, if the scientists weren't bribed or tortured, and if their report wasn't faked, it stands to reason that the other Oswald boy must have been operated on at the age of six, just like the first Oswald. That has to be the reason why the body in Oswald's grave had the mastoidectomy defect! Journalist: Let me get this straight. The people who set up your 'Oswald project' had a mastoidectomy operation performed on a six-year-old boy back in the 1940s just in case his body might need to be dug up decades later. Is that what you're saying? Cult Member: It makes perfect sense to me. They thought of everything, those plotters! Journalist: Hmm. I'm just wondering where this operation would have been carried out. Do you have the name of the hospital? The surgeon? My editor will need to see some documentation for all of this. Can you get me photocopies of the records? Cult Member: The operation was top secret, of course, so there won't be any records. I think it was carried out in a hospital in New York. That's another thing. According to the so-called official documentation, that hospital wasn't even built until several years after the operation must have taken place. This just proves that all the records have been faked or destroyed by the lizard people, and how top-secret the whole thing was. Journalist: Uh huh. Cult Member: I mean, just ask yourself why there's virtually no documentary evidence for the existence of our two Oswalds. There ought to be absolutely loads of evidence, with two Oswalds and two Marguerites living separate lives for many years, but there's hardly any. The obvious answer is: a vast amount of evidence has been faked or destroyed! It stands to reason, when you think about it logically with an open mind and consider all the possibilities. Journalist: Right. Now, on the subject of living separate lives, are there any examples of the two Oswalds being in different places at the same time? Cult Member: Indeed there are. When he was a boy, he attended two schools at the same time. A few years later, when he was in the marines, he was in Taiwan and Japan at the same time. Then, when one of the Oswalds was in the Soviet Union, the other one was in New Orleans, trying to buy trucks. Journalist: That doesn't sound very likely. I presume you've got some really solid evidence to support these claims. Cult Member: Well, we've got some eye-witnesses. And there's documentary evidence too. It's all on bits of paper and everything. Obviously, you need to know how to interpret the documents correctly. Journalist: Eye-witnesses often aren't very reliable. What method do you use to tell which witnesses are reliable and which ones aren't? Cult Member: It's all about whether what they say agrees with our theory. We know that our theory is true, so that's how you can tell which witnesses are reliable and which ones aren't. Journalist: Hmm. I presume all the documentary evidence could be interpreted in more than one way. I'd guess that your interpretation isn't the only one available. Cult Member: You see, some people will try to dismiss our claims by saying that we're just cherry-picking and deliberately misinterpreting stuff, or reading too much into simple clerical errors, but they're wrong. We know the truth! Journalist: I notice that you described this two-Oswald plan as the 'Oswald project'. Is there any evidence that that term was used officially? Cult Member: Yes, there is! There was a former CIA guy who testified to the House Select Committee on Assassinations about Oswald, and he used the term 'Oswald project'. Journalist: Really? That's interesting. What did he say about this long-term plan that involved two Oswalds and two Marguerites? Cult Member: Well, on the face of it, when he used the term 'Oswald project' he was just referring to Oswald's defection being a CIA operation. But we prefer to think that he was referring to the truth which is revealed to us in our holy book. Journalist: Did he say anything specific about this plot with the two Oswalds and the two Marguerites? Cult Member: He might have done. Journalist: I'm sorry? Cult Member: He might have said something. Journalist: Did he specifically mention this plot with the two Oswalds and two Marguerites? Yes or no? Cult Member: No. Journalist: So it's more than a little misleading to use the CIA guy as support for your two-Oswald theory, isn't it? Cult Member: But that's all we've got! Journalist: Hmm. Cult Member: Look, you can't just claim that Oswald was an agent of some sort. That isn't particularly exciting. We think it's much better to get people to think that if Oswald was an agent, he was also the product of our 'Oswald project'. You see, the more complicated and unlikely something is, the more exciting it is. And this is really, really unlikely, which means it's very exciting indeed! [To be continued]

[Interview, part two] Journalist: What about the mothers of these two Oswalds? Did they look similar too? Cult Member: Yes, and they were both called Marguerite. Journalist: That's handy. Cult Member: Actually, they looked sort of similar but different at the same time, just like their sons. You see, there are photographs of one of the Marguerites, taken a few decades before the assassination, and she looks young and slim and attractive. But the other Marguerite, who was photographed a few decades later, looks heavier, grey-haired, and generally older. That proves that she was a different person. Journalist: Is that it? Just photographs? Cult Member: No, not at all. There is one rock-solid piece of evidence that proves beyond any doubt that there were two Marguerites. Some guy who met her on one occasion in the 1950s was shown a photograph of her about forty years later, and he thought that the woman in the photograph looked a bit different to the one he remembered. Journalist: You're saying that he met her once, and was shown a photograph of her forty years later, and he thought she looked a bit different? Cult Member: Exactly! You can't argue with that, can you? Journalist: Let me get this straight. You've got two pairs of people. Two Oswalds, and two Marguerites, and they looked sort of similar but different. Cult Member: That's right! Journalist: What about their friends and relatives? Didn't they spot that each boy looked a bit different, or that each Marguerite looked a bit different? Cult Member: Oh no, because the two boys looked identical, and the two mothers looked identical! Journalist: I thought you said that that they weren't identical, that you can glance at the photographs and tell which was which. Cult Member: That's right. Each boy looked identical enough to fool his friends and family, but different enough so that we can tell them apart when looking at photographs. Well, at least some of the time. Same for the Marguerites. It was a very cunning plan! Journalist: I was wondering about Oswald's older brother, Robert, who I think is still alive. Are there two of him, or just the one? Cult Member: I'll have to consult my holy book, but I think we believe there has only been one of him. Journalist: So he was the actual brother of one of your two Oswalds, and the actual son of one of your two Marguerites, is that right? Did he ever meet the other Oswald and Marguerite? Cult Member: As it happens, he did. According to our holy book, Robert grew up knowing his real brother and mother, of course, but at some point in the 1950s they were replaced by the other brother and mother, without him noticing. Or if he did notice, he was bribed or tortured so that he wouldn't spill the beans. And Robert's wife knew both Marguerites, and she kept quiet about it too. Journalist: I find it difficult to believe that Robert and his wife never went public with this information. Cult Member: That shows you just how well organised the plot was! Journalist: There must have been plenty of people who had known Marguerite for years. Did any of them come forward to point out that the woman on TV after the assassination wasn't the woman they had known? Cult Member: Of course not! Do you really think that the people behind the 'Oswald project' weren't able to twist a few arms when necessary? Journalist: I understand that there are a couple of people who specifically stated that the Marguerite they saw after the assassination was the same woman they had known years earlier. How do you explain that? Cult Member: They were bribed! They may even have been tortured. Isn't it obvious? Journalist: Not to me, I'm afraid. Cult Member: OK, forget about that, then. There's also Oswald's handwriting. It looks sort of different sometimes. Journalist: I thought that the House Select Committee on Assassinations got some experts in to look at that, and they found that all the handwriting was of one person. Cult Member: Ha! Do you really think those so-called experts weren't bribed or tortured? You're so naive! Journalist: The way I see it, you've got problems with the photographs, which aren't clearly of two different people, and with the handwriting, which the experts say was done by just one person. My editor isn't going to be persuaded by that. Are there any other types of evidence that might show that there were two Oswalds? Cult Member: I was thinking of Oswald's shoes. Journalist: His shoes? Cult Member: Yes. You see, if you examine Oswald's shoes, you might find different patterns of wear and tear on the soles, which would prove beyond any doubt that he was two people! Journalist: Umm. Right. How many pairs of his shoes have you examined? Cult Member: Well, we haven't actually got hold of Oswald's shoes yet, but it's a possible line of research. Journalist: What if the shoes don't show different patterns of wear and tear? Cult Member: That proves that the shoes were faked! Journalist: I see. And what if you can't actually get hold of any of his shoes? Cult Member: That proves that the shoes were deliberately destroyed by the gang of super-powerful Bad Guys who set up the 'Oswald project'! Um, if the shoe thing doesn't work, there's also his underpants. Although I wouldn't be surprised if they've been deliberately destroyed too. Journalist: Mmm. OK. On the subject of the two Marguerites, what happened to the other one after the assassination? What has she been doing since 1963? Cult Member: She vanished into thin air. Journalist: Just like her son? Cult Member: Exactly! Or it might have been the other Marguerite's son who vanished. I'll have to check the holy book. But getting people to vanish like that, it just shows you how sophisticated and believeable the plot was, doesn't it? [To be continued]

Tracy has made the suggestion several times that Jim and his fellow cult members should assemble their evidence and present it to someone with connections, such as a prominent newspaper or TV journalist, who might be able to give it some publicity. Despite the media's general attitude to the JFK assassination, there are journalists who are sympathetic to critics of the official line. As Tracy pointed out, the leader of the cult got in touch with a Texas Monthly journalist back in 1998 but failed to convince the journalist of his case for two Oswalds. The cult members themselves will never do anything like that, for obvious reasons. But what if they did? I've been wondering how the conversation might go: Journalist: So, tell me what you've got. Cult Member: Well, the CIA cooked up this elaborate scheme, which started back in the 1940s, to bring up two unrelated boys, 'Harvey' and 'Lee', in the hope that when they grew up they would turn out to look alike, so that one of them, who was chosen because he was able to speak Russian like a native, could be sent into the Soviet Union as a spy. Journalist: It sounds a bit unlikely, to be honest. Cult Member: There's more to it than that. When the plot to assassinate JFK was being planned, the plotters decided to take one of the unrelated identical twins and frame him for the murder. One of the two Oswalds, 'Lee', was given the task of framing the other one, 'Harvey'. Journalist: The people who organised this two-Oswald scheme were the same ones who killed President Kennedy? Cult Member: Oh, yes! Journalist: What documentary evidence do you have for that? If I'm going to persuade my editor to run this story, we'll need to see some documents. Cult Member: Well, it was top secret, you know. All the documents will have been destroyed. Journalist: That's unfortunate. Now, what happened to the other unrelated identical twin, the one who wasn't framed? What has he been doing since 1963? Cult Member: Um, we're not quite sure. He seems to have vanished into thin air immediately after the assassination. Journalist: I see. On the subject of Oswald's defection, I believe that several other Americans defected to the Soviet Union around the time Oswald went there. I'd guess that some of them might have been US agents too. How many of them had unrelated identical twins? Cult Member: I don't think any of them did. Journalist: So this particular spy was the only one to have an unrelated identical twin. Why was that? Cult Member: Ah. Good point. I'm not entirely sure. But it's an exciting idea, isn't it? It means there was this really, really big conspiracy! Doesn't that get you all excited? Journalist: Personally, no. I'm curious about what you were saying about one of the two boys being a native speaker of Russian. How did that come about? Cult Member: He was a Hungarian refugee. You see, Hungarian is a funny-sounding foreign language, and so is Russian. Just listen to them, they both sound really weird, like gibberish. Don't forget that Hungary and Russia are both over there in Europe or someplace. So if the boy spoke Hungarian he must also have been able to speak Russian. And then when he came to the US, he immediately learned English too. The reason we know that is because he was in school in New York, aged twelve, speaking English. Journalist: I see. This boy's first language was Hungarian, and then he learned to speak Russian like a native, and then he learned to speak English like a native. You're saying that by the age of twelve, he was in effect a native speaker of three very different languages, is that right? Cult Member: Exactly! Journalist: What was the Hungarian boy's name? Are there any official documents identifying him? There must be something from when he entered the US. Do you have any copies that I can show my editor? Cult Member: Look, will you stop trying to complicate things? OK, so maybe the Russian-speaking boy wasn't Hungarian after all. He was ... umm ... probably a Russian world war two orphan instead. That's right, he was a Russian world war two orphan. Journalist: Oh. I see. And the evidence for that is? Cult Member: Please stop asking all these unhelpful questions! There aren't any immigration papers or anything like that. It's obvious that all the documents were destroyed by the people behind the two-Oswald plot. Look, our theory requires one of the Oswald boys to have been a native speaker of Russian. So that boy must have been a Hungarian refugee or a Russian orphan or something. It doesn't matter that there's no evidence for any of this. Our theory requires it, so it must be true. Journalist: What was the point of the defector being able to speak Russian like a native? Cult Member: That was so that he could overhear things without the Soviet authorities suspecting that he was a spy! Journalist: But Oswald didn't speak Russian like a native. Cult Member: Yes, he did! It says so in my holy book! Journalist: He seems to have spoken the language quite well, at least by the time he arrived back in the US, but that doesn't mean that he was a native speaker of Russian. Cult Member: Yes, it does! Journalist: Several witnesses, including Marina Oswald, have said that his knowledge of Russian grammar really wasn't very good. That pretty much proves that he wasn't a native speaker. Cult Member: Don't listen to them! They're lying! Journalist: OK, OK. Anyway, we've got two unrelated boys who grow up to look identical. My editor might find that a bit hard to believe. Could I have copies of any photographs which show the two boys together? Cult Member: Well, there aren't any photographs of both boys together. That would have given away the plot, you see. Journalist: So there's no actual photographic evidence? Cult Member: Oh yes! We've got plenty of photographs of each Oswald. All you need to do is line them up and compare them. Journalist: Really? You can tell which Oswald is which? Cult Member: Of course! I mean, none of us agrees on exactly which photographs are of which Oswald. There's a fair amount of guesswork involved, obviously. Journalist: Why is that? Cult Member: Well, all the photographs look as though they are of the same person. Or they would do if you didn't know about the 'two Oswald' plot. You see, we all agree that there's a big conspiracy going on here, so if you examine the photographs carefully and you want to see that they look a bit different, they do. You just need to keep an open mind and consider all the possibilities. Journalist: So how do you tell which photograph is of which Oswald? Cult Member: OK. For example, there are a couple of photographs which show Oswald with sloping shoulders. That means that one of the Oswalds had sloping shoulders, and the other one didn't. Journalist: So all of the photographs of this particular Oswald show him with sloping shoulders? Cult Member: Actually, no. We've had to allocate some of the non-sloping shoulder photographs to the sloping-shouldered Oswald. You see, our holy book tells us where each Oswald was at any particular time, so all you have to do is to work out where and when each photograph was taken, and that tells you which Oswald it is! Journalist: Hmm. I'd guess the sloping shoulders thing wasn't a permanent feature, then. It was just how he happened to be standing when the picture was taken. Cult Member: I hadn't thought of that. OK, forget the sloping shoulders. How about this instead: one of the Oswalds was photographed in his marines uniform, and he looks beefier than the scrawny Oswald who features in photographs taken at other times. That proves that he was two people! Journalist: Well ... Cult Member: And in some of the photographs he even has a different haircut! What more evidence could you possibly need? Journalist: Surely all the apparent differences can be explained by factors such as different lighting conditions, different poses, Oswald getting older, bulking up while in the marines, that sort of thing. Cult Member: No, no, not at all. That's too far-fetched. You see, if you can imagine that all of these differences are actually due to something much more believeable, such as a really enormous plot, everything becomes so much more exciting! Don't you get a tingly feeling when you think that everything in the world is under the control of some super-powerful Bad Guys? I do! [To be continued]

Here's James Norwood, in one of his first posts on this forum, reporting me to the moderators for "casting aspersions on other forum members": http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?do=findComment&comment=359133 Here's James Norwood reporting Paul Trejo to the moderators for "casting aspersions on fellow members": http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24241-oswald’s-proficiency-in-the-russian-language/?do=findComment&comment=360472 Here's James Norwood reporting Michael Walton to the moderators for "casting personal aspersions on fellow members": http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?do=findComment&comment=360554 James Norwood clearly doesn't like anyone casting aspersions on fellow members. Oh, wait. Here's James Norwood calling Tracy Parnell "Trolling Tracy": http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?do=findComment&comment=360550 Here's Sandy Larsen claiming, without citing any evidence, that I'm a "lone nutter": http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?do=findComment&comment=359053 Here's James Norwood claiming, without citing any evidence, that I have a "belief in the Warren Report" and "a bias in favor in the findings of the Warren Report": http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?do=findComment&comment=359084 Sandy at least had the decency to apologise for his comment. I'm still waiting for James to do the same. Here's Greg Parker inviting James Norwood to debate the Harvey and Lee nonsense: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1573-invitation-to-dr-norwood Here's Greg Parker inviting Sandy Larsen to actually deal with the question of the school records: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records#20913

Jim claims that: <blockquote>The evidence clearly shows the FBI report was faked.</blockquote> At last! A moment of honesty (and paranoia). Jim really does believe that the FBI faked the report of its interview with Oscar Deslatte! To support his claim, he wheels out Fred Sewell, who claimed that he and Oscar Deslatte were not shown a photograph of the real-life, one and only, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. But Deslatte claimed that he was in fact shown a photograph of Oswald, and that he was unable to identify Oswald as the man he had met. Why does Jim believe Sewell over Deslatte? As I've explained several times already, there is no good reason to believe Sewell over Deslatte: - Sewell was interviewed several years after Deslatte, and about six years after the incident in question. - It was Deslatte who actually dealt with the customer. Sewell admitted that "I wasn't at my desk all the time, I was in and out working because I had customers". - Sewell was categorically wrong in his one specific claim about the encounter that can be checked. He claimed that Deslatte had written the name 'Lee Oswald' on the paperwork. But the paperwork contains only the surname, 'Oswald'. No doubt the FBI faked that document too. - Deslatte had no conceivable reason to lie to the FBI. If there is a conflict between Deslatte's testimony and Sewell's, it is Deslatte's testimony that should be believed. Unfortunately, if you believe Deslatte over Sewell, as any rational person must, one more part of the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy disappears down the toilet, where it belongs.

Jim Hargrove writes: <blockquote>If we are to believe the wording in the FBI report, we must wonder why Oscar Deslatte was so convinced he had met with "Lee Harvey Oswald" in the first place that he was telling his story to others</blockquote> As I have explained more than once already, the evidence is absolutely not consistent with the conclusion that Oscar Deslatte was convinced he had met the real Oswald whose name and photograph were all over the news after the assassination. Deslatte specifically claimed that the man he met gave only a surname, and not a first name. He did not recognise Oswald when shown a photograph of him. He was unable to recall the man's appearance sufficiently to be able to provide the FBI with a description. Deslatte stated that "he could neither describe nor identify either of the men who came in as it was almost three years ago that they were there and only spent a short time with him. He said he remembered the incident, not by the name Oswald, but because of the name of the organization represented." Jim writes: <blockquote>Why did that FBI report go directly to J. Edgar Hoover? Because it threatened to expose the entire "Oswald Project,"</blockquote> Of course it wasn't because it threatened to expose the 'Oswald project', which didn't even exist. I'm glad Jim made this mistake, because it gives me the chance to include one of those links he likes so much. The reason why the FBI report went to Hoover is explained here: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1408-the-bolton-ford-incident Jim writes: <blockquote>Sewell stated, late in the interview, that he couldn’t remember whether one name or two were written on the Bolton Ford bid form</blockquote> As I have pointed out several times, Fred Sewell was an unreliable witness. Deslatte was a more reliable witness than Sewell. I'm glad Jim agrees with me at last. Jim writes: <blockquote>Sewell was clearly off by four or five inches about Lee Oswald’s height.</blockquote> Again, Sewell was an unreliable witness, which is not good for Jim. Alternatively, if Sewell happened to be correct about the man's height, that's not good for Jim either, since it demolishes the ridiculous notion that the man whom Sewell met was an Oswald doppelganger. Jim writes: <blockquote>When Oscar Deslatte began spreading the word around New Orleans that he had met with Lee Harvey Oswald</blockquote> Again, there is no evidence that Deslatte was certain that he had met the real Lee Harvey Oswald. He evidently didn't feel strongly enough to contact the FBI himself. Deslatte appears to have mentioned the incident to his colleague, Fred Sewell, and to one other person, Charles Pearson of Graham Paper Co. Pearson told Mary Cusco, an employee of his. Cusco told her husband. Mr Cusco told Orlando Piedra. Piedra told Carlos Bringuier. Bringuier told the FBI. Jim writes: <blockquote>both Deslatte and Sewell seemed so certain they had met with Lee Harvey Oswald</blockquote> For the umpteenth time, Deslatte was not certain that he had met the real Lee Harvey Oswald, and Sewell was an unreliable witness. We know that Sewell was an unreliable witness because one claim he made, that the paperwork contained the name 'Lee Oswald', is demonstrably false. Jim writes: <blockquote>Mr. Bojczuk REALLY want us to believe the FBI report on Deslatte over the Garrison transcript of Fred Sewell’s interview!</blockquote> For the reasons I've already given several times, Deslatte was a more reliable witness than Sewell. Jim writes: <blockquote>Well, let’s see some more about how reliable the FBI was in this case</blockquote> Is Jim actually claiming that the FBI's report of its interview with Oscar Deslatte was faked? As I pointed out earlier, and as any rational person understands, you can't just assume that an inconvenient item of evidence is a forgery when it suits your purposes.

Jim writes: <blockquote>Oscar Deslatte clearly thought he met LHO, because his comments were being talked about all over town</blockquote> On the contrary, Oscar Deslatte was not sure that he had met the actual Lee Harvey Oswald, because he specifically told the FBI that the man did not give the first name, Lee, and because he could not recall the man's appearance well enough to be able to provide a description. What Deslatte remembered was that he had encountered someone with the surname, Oswald. It's interesting to see how Jim picks and chooses which aspects of Fred Sewell's evidence to accept: - Sewell, who was interviewed six years after the event, claimed that the man gave the name 'Lee Oswald'. Jim can use that part. But we know that Sewell was wrong when he claimed that the full name 'Lee Oswald' had been written on the paperwork, so there is every reason to conclude that he was wrong about this too, especially as Oscar Deslatte, who had spent more time with the customer than Sewell had, specifically denied that the man had provided a first name. - Sewell claimed that the man was 5'6" or 5'7", two or three inches shorter than the real-life Lee Harvey Oswald, and four or five inches shorter than the fictional 'Harvey' doppelganger who, according to 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' doctrine, was the customer at the Bolton Ford dealership. Obviously, if Sewell was correct about the man's height, the incident cannot have involved the fictional 'Harvey'. Jim doesn't like that part. So Fred Sewell was a reliable witness, according to Jim, when he claimed that the man gave the name 'Lee Oswald', even though there is documentary evidence that the man did not give the name 'Lee Oswald', but Sewell was an unreliable witness, according to Jim, when he claimed that the man was several inches shorter than the fictional 'Harvey'. To any objective reader, it's clear that Sewell was simply mistaken in linking Lee Harvey Oswald to the Bolton Ford incident. It is a fact that the historical Lee Harvey Oswald was far from being the only Oswald in Louisiana in 1961, and it is a fact that plenty of business owners and FBI agents were opposed to the Castro regime. The fact that the incident involved an anti-Castro organisation which included one of Oswald's former employers and one of his future associates tells us nothing except that plenty of business owners and former FBI agents were opposed to the Castro regime. I'm looking forward to seeing how Jim manages to reconcile, on the one hand, the doctrinal need to keep the fictional 'Harvey' doppelganger out of the public eye with, on the other hand, an incident in which the fictional 'Harvey' doppelganger is wandering around in public trying to buy trucks. I think it's time for Jim to divert attention by changing the subject again. Did you know that Oswald was in two schools at the same time? It's true, I tell you!

Bernie Laverick makes a good point: <blockquote>the CIA would certainly be capable of cooking up something like H&L, given their vast resources, precisely in order to split assassination researchers and create a narrative so wacky, it could even make the national media. That is its design and purpose.</blockquote> If you were in charge of operations to discredit those who question the official verdict on the JFK assassination, what is the first thing you would do? Mark Lane and other early critics had agents digging into their personal lives and their political affiliations. These days, though, you won't get far accusing someone of being a communist sympathiser. What you need to do is to portray your opponents as unhinged, moon-landings-crazy fantasists. It has often struck me that when a serious challenge to the official line is generated, something similar, but obviously unhinged, appears close behind: - It became clear that President Kennedy's autopsy was manipulated, and that at least one shot probably came from in front. What do we get? The claim that JFK's body was snatched and altered to disguise the fact that all the shots came from in front, despite the fact that Governor Connally was hit from behind. - It became clear that some of the evidence in the case had been manipulated by the law enforcement agencies. What do we get? The claim that the Zapruder film was altered to make it compatible with the lone-nut theory, despite the fact that the film as we know it actually contradicts the lone-nut theory. - It became clear that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City and perhaps elsewhere. What do we get? The truly lunatic claim that there was a duplicate Oswald running around from the age of 12, with a duplicate mother also named Marguerite, all based on flimsy eyewitness evidence, flimsy subjective interpretation of clerical errors, and flimsy subjective interpretation of photographs, despite the fact that the whole thing was flatly contradicted by the exhumation of Oswald's body a couple of decades before the theory was even published. - It became clear that Oswald was probably filmed standing on the steps of the book depository during the assassination. What do we get? Perhaps the nuttiest claim of all: an attempt to conflate the Prayer Man evidence with the long-dismissed allegation that James Altgens' photograph showed Oswald on the steps, and the claim that in order to prevent suspicion that Oswald was standing on the steps, his face was replaced with that of someone who looked so much like him that it generated the claim that Oswald was standing on the steps. These extreme conspiracy theories have nothing to do with the essential evidence and arguments that contradict the lone-nut theory. The problem is that these theories are liable to replace the essential evidence and arguments in the minds of casual observers. Imagine the reaction of, for example, a member of the general public who is interested in finding out more about the assassination, when he or she stumbles across these theories. Or the reaction of an open-minded journalist who is tempted to persuade his or her editor to give the subject some objective coverage for a change. Their reactions will be the same. So that's what all those JFK assassination enthusiasts believe! They really are a bunch of raving lunatics! Obviously Oswald did it after all. I'm not convinced, though, that any of these extreme conspiracy theories were generated in the murky bowels of CIA headquarters. One of the problems with the fact that none of the official investigations into the assassination has produced a conclusion that is widely accepted is that the subject is open to any old idiotic interpretation. There are plenty of ... (I'll have to choose the word carefully) eccentrics around who are more than capable of inventing this sort of nonsense without assistance. And you only have to look at this thread to see that there are people so gullible that they will find any reason to persuade themselves that a far-fetched, internally contradictory theory is preferable to a common-sense interpretation of the evidence. Nonsense such as the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory is not just wrong but actually harmful, and ought to be opposed for both reasons.

Sandy attempts to give the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy some credibility by throwing Einstein's name around: <blockquote>Einstein developed his Theory of Relativity by fitting together pieces of evidence that seemed contradictory. (Sort of like school records indicating that a student attended two schools simultaneously.) Meanwhile, Einstein's contemporaries made excuses for the evidence, hoping to make it fit their preconceived notions. (Sort of like Armstrong's detractors.) The other scientists got nowhere. In contrast, Einstein developed a theory where all the evidence fit together nicely, without his having to resort to excuse making. (Sort of like what John Armstrong did with the Oswald evidence.) He did this because he had an mind opened to new new and unusual possibilities. Einstein's finished theory sounded preposterous and was rejected by most. (Sort of like Armstrong's theory, which sounds far fetched to most people.) But Einstein stuck with his guns because he knew that the evidence -- and not the excuses -- would win the day. Eventually Einstein was vindicated and his theory proven correct. I am confident that Armstrong will be vindicated too.</blockquote> I think this is what Sandy meant to write: Einstein developed his Theory of Relativity by fitting together pieces of evidence that seemed contradictory. (Sort of like finding a common-sense explanation for anomalies in Oswald's school records, one which doesn't require the ridiculous conclusion that he attended two schools simultaneously.) Meanwhile, Einstein's contemporaries made excuses for the evidence, hoping to make it fit their preconceived notions. (Sort of like Armstrong's followers.) The other scientists got nowhere. In contrast, Einstein developed a theory where all the evidence fit together nicely, without his having to resort to excuse making. (Sort of like the exact opposite of what John Armstrong did with the Oswald evidence.) He did this because he had an mind opened to new new and unusual possibilities. Einstein's finished theory sounded preposterous and was rejected by most. (Sort of like Armstrong's theory, which sounds to most people like something deposited in a steaming pile by a farmyard animal, and, unlike Einstein's theory, was conclusively refuted two decades before it was published, by the evidence of a mastoidectomy on the body in Oswald's grave, which shows the theory to be internally contradictory and therefore false.) But Einstein stuck with his guns because he knew that the evidence -- and not the excuses -- would win the day. Eventually Einstein was vindicated and his theory proven correct. I am confident that even if humans are still around in five billion years' time when the sun becomes a red giant and makes the earth uninhabitable, Armstrong's theory doesn't have the slightest chance of being proven correct. Counterparts of the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' proponents, such as creationists, astrologers, homeopaths and other peddlars of pseudoscientific twaddle, often use the example of Gallileo's persecution to show that their twaddle might eventually be vindicated, so I suppose that by using Einstein, Sandy is at least displaying some originality, though not much logic. I'm looking forward to finding out what the working methods of Isaac Newton, Stephen Hawking, William Shakespeare and Ludwig van Beethoven can tell us about the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy.

Jim Hargrove claims that I was mistaken when I wrote this: <blockquote>one claim that Sewell made is demonstrably wrong: that Deslatte wrote the full name 'Lee Oswald' on the paperwork. The paperwork contains only the name 'Oswald'.</blockquote> Jim then quotes an exchange between Fred Sewell and James Alcock, in which Sewell claims that he can't remember whether his colleague, Oscar Deslatte, wrote 'Oswald' or 'Lee Oswald' on the paperwork. Evidently, I must have been mistaken: Sewell did not in fact claim that Deslatte wrote the full name, 'Lee Oswald', on the paperwork. But wait! What do we have here? It's something else from the Sewell/Alcock conversation: - Alcock: Now, what was the name of the other man, the thin man? Did you ever see his name written on the bid? - Sewell: I think that Oscar Deslatte wrote that on there, Lee Oswald, but he didn't use the Harvey, just Lee Oswald if I remember right. - Alcock: Lee Oswald? - Sewell: Yes, it's been six years of course. The point I originally made still stands: Fred Sewell's recollection was faulty, and there is no reason to conclude that the man who visited the Bolton Ford dealership used the name 'Lee Oswald'. There's a more important point to be made. It's conceivable that Jim wasn't aware of this part of the Sewell/Alcock conversation. We could put Jim's mistake down to ignorance, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead, were it not for one small, inconvenient fact. This part of the conversation is featured on Jim's own website: http://harveyandlee.net/JH PIX/61-04.jpg . That image was used by Jim on this very thread only a few days ago. This sort of disgraceful behaviour tells us a lot about the mentality that's required in order to actively promote something as crazy as the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy. I presume that Jim doesn't even think there's anything wrong with his misleadingly selective use of the evidence. If it's in the service of a higher truth, anything goes. That's how every religious fundamentalist propagandist thinks. As Bernie Laverick remarks in his excellent post, the Harvey and Lee cult has been going for a couple of decades and has only managed to convert a handful of acolytes. With all the material now out there on the web, in particular Greg Parker's forum and Tracy Parnell's website, the cult is unlikely to make very many more converts. Perhaps it is time to treat the Harvey and Lee cult in the same way most of us treat its equivalents: those who believe that the moon landings were faked or that the earth is flat. For those casual readers who are interested in finding out more: - https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13p30-the-harvey-lee-evidence - http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/search/label/Harvey %26 Lee

James Norwood writes: <blockquote>Other than the fact that President Kennedy was killed, what are some examples of those uncontested facts? I suspect that you will not be offering a single example in this discussion because you know very well that every major premise at the heart of the Warren Report has been called into question.</blockquote> For Mr Norwood's benefit, here are a few of the "basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination" that can be found in the Warren Report: 1 - The assassination occurred in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas, USA, at approximately 12:30pm on Friday 22 November 1963 AD. 2 - President Kennedy died in Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas, USA. 4 - Governor Connally was wounded, and was operated on in Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas, USA. 5 - On the day of the assassination, someone calling himself Lee Harvey Oswald was working in the Texas School Book Depository, which is in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas, USA. 6 - The man who called himself Oswald was arrested approximately one hour and 20 minutes after the assassination, in the Texas Theater in Dallas, Texas, USA. 7 - The man who called himself Oswald was shot and killed two days after the assassination of President Kennedy, by a man who called himself Jack Ruby. I'm sure that, if he tries hard, Mr Norwood can think of plenty more "basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination" that can be found in the Warren Report. Mr Norwood states that "every major premise at the heart of the Warren Report has been called into question". I agree with him that plenty of what is in the Warren Report has been called into question, or contested. It may interest him to know that the word "contested" carries the opposite meaning to the word "uncontested". Because the particular items Mr Norwood was referring to are contested, and not uncontested, they do not fall into the category I was referring to when I wrote the phrase "basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination". Does Mr Norwood seriously believe that because I accept some of what is in the Warren Report, namely the "basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination", I must also accept the contested elements of the Warren Report? I suspect he really does think this way, because he accused me on page 60 of this thread of having a "belief in the Warren Report" and of a "bias in favor in the findings of the Warren Report". Or perhaps he believes that anyone who opposes the nonsensical and harmful 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory must necessarily support the Warren Report's equally nonsensical and even more harmful lone-nut theory. I asked Mr Norwood, politely, if he would provide some evidence to justify his accusation, but he has so far failed to do so. Let's try again. Mr Norwood, what evidence led you to conclude that I have a "belief in the Warren Report" and a "bias in favor in the findings of the Warren Report"?

Jim Hargrove writes: <blockquote>Quite obviously, Mr. Bojczuk has decided not to respond to this post. If he does respond, it will consist primarily of just complaints about how horrible I am followed by a link to some incomplete nonsense by Greg Parker. Mr. Bojczuk will put nothing substantial about the Bolton Ford Incident up on this website. I wonder why?</blockquote> Quite obviously, Mr Bojczuk had not responded to Mr Hargrove's post within a few hours for three reasons: (a) he lives in a very different time zone to Mr Hargrove; (b) he has plenty of other interests and obligations to occupy his time; and (c) he very rarely spends more than a few minutes a day reading posts on this forum. I'm sure Jim isn't a horrible person. I have no doubt that he is kind to animals and children and that he frequently helps little old ladies to cross the street. But his devotion to the poorly supported and internally contradictory 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory is very much like that of a religious fundamentalist to his or her holy book. In his post, Jim makes a couple of points worth replying to. The first is: <blockquote>Of course, this begs the question: If Mr. Deslatte didn’t think it was "Lee Oswald," why did he remember the incident two years later and why did he contact the FBI?</blockquote> Firstly, a small pedantic objection. It doesn't beg the question; it raises the question. Begging the question is the logical error of assuming that which you are trying to prove. It's a useful phrase which ought to be employed correctly. Pedantry over. Deslatte obviously remembered the incident because the name 'Oswald' was all over the news. The fact that Deslatte specifically denied that the person he dealt with gave the first name 'Lee', and the fact that he could not recall the man's appearance sufficiently to be able to provide a description, suggest that he was not certain that the man he dealt with was the historical, one and only, uncloned Lee Harvey Oswald who underwent a mastoidectomy at the age of six and whose body was exhumed several decades later in a scientific procedure which proved the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory to be internally contradictory and therefore false. The second point Jim makes is: <blockquote>The FBI report that Mr. Bojczuk is so enamored with specifically states that "DESLATTE was exhibited a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD." And yet, Deslatte's boss, Fred Sewell, specifically denied that claim to Jim Garrison. He said, "No. They didn’t show us no pictures." And he said it several times. So who are we to believe, the FBI report on Deslatte or the Garrison transcript of Fred Sewell's interview.</blockquote> We are to believe the FBI report. There are two reasons to believe that Sewell's account is less reliable than Deslatte's. Firstly, Sewell's account was given several years later than Deslatte's. Secondly, one claim that Sewell made is demonstrably wrong: that Deslatte wrote the full name 'Lee Oswald' on the paperwork. The paperwork contains only the name 'Oswald'. I agree with Jim that some of the documentary evidence appears to have been altered by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. But that doesn't mean that you can just assume that any inconvenient piece of documentary evidence has been altered. Is Jim seriously suggesting that the FBI report of its interview with Oscar Deslatte is a forgery? Because Jim likes it so much, here's that link again: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1408-the-bolton-ford-incident

James Norwood writes: <blockquote>In my post that prompted your intemperate response, I was only asking for you to defend your position about the Warren Report providing "basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination." The main thesis of the Warren Report is that Oswald shot the president and acted alone in doing so. Given the paramount importance of that conclusion, what are the "basic, uncontested facts" about Oswald presented in the Warren Report? Or are there none?</blockquote> In what you consider to have been my "intemperate response", I merely pointed out that you had failed to comprehend what I had written. I apologise if I offended your delicate sensibilities, but my point stands. If you still don't understand the point I was making, please read my post again. In that post, I pointed out that you were accusing me of having a "belief in the Warren Report" and a "bias in favor in the findings of the Warren Report". What evidence do you have for that accusation? The fact that I argued against the preposterous 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory?

Sandy Larsen writes: <blockquote>However the preponderance of evidence is in opposition to the mastoidectomy outlier. So I'm inclined to believe there is something missing or wrong with the mastoidectomy evidence. It seems to me there are only two possibilities to explain it. Either efforts were made to keep identifiable medical marks, such as the mastoidectomy and dental work, identical between the two Oswalds, or a fake mastoidectomy scar was added to the exhumation report and the witnesses were convinced to go along with it, probably with some bullxxxx "national security" story fed to them.</blockquote> The "preponderance of evidence is in opposition to the mastoidectomy outlier"! The "outlier" is a solid piece of physical evidence, reported by reputable scientists in a reputable academic journal, which shows the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory to be internally contradictory and therefore false. Sandy is correct to imply that the only way to get around this evidence and to maintain a belief in the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory is to claim that either: - (a) a hypothetical Oswald clone was given a mastoidectomy scar at the age of six, just on the off-chance that the clone's body would be dug up and examined several decades later; or - (b) that the solid piece of physical evidence, reported by reputable scientists in a reputable academic journal, has been faked. Unfortunately, there is not the slightest piece of evidence for the existence of a six-year-old Oswald clone, or for the existence of the surgeon who must have operated on the clone, or for the existence of the hospital in which the operation must have taken place, or for the faking of a mastoidectomy scar in the scientists' report, or for the notion that the scientists were coerced into allowing their report to be faked and then keeping quiet about the faking of their report. It is a complete fantasy. But that is what happens when an irrational belief is contradicted by solid evidence and the believer does not have the mental strength to acknowledge the irrationality of the belief. To anyone looking at the matter objectively, the mastoidectomy evidence alone shows the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory to be nonsense. There is, however, a more important point here. Imagine what would happen if a rational person who doesn't know much about the JFK assassination, but who is keen to find out if it's a subject worth taking seriously, reads this thread and in particular Sandy's comment. What would they think? Irrational nonsense such as the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory is actively dangerous. It is liable to contaminate serious criticism of the lone-nut theory, and ought to be opposed.

As for James Norwood, he really needs to learn how to read. When he has done that, he needs to learn how to think. I used the words, "basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination", not "basic, uncontested facts about Oswald". There are basic, uncontested facts about the JFK assassination, and the Warren Report is as good a place as any to find them. It should be obvious to anyone who, unlike Mr Norwood, has delved beyond the first footnote that I believe that the Warren Report contains plenty of claims that can legitimately be contested. James Norwood writes: <blockquote>It is obvious ... that Jeremy's belief in the Warren Report is being challenged ... It is easy to follow Jeremy's posts on this thread to discern a bias in favor in the findings of the Warren Report.</blockquote> Is it? Only for someone who is unable to think clearly. Perhaps Mr Norwood would be kind enough to provide details about which of my posts here support my "belief in the Warren Report" and my "bias in favor in the findings of the Warren Report". Mr Norwood seems to be implying that opposition to extreme conspiracy theories such as the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory equals support for the lone-nut theory. If that is what he believes, could he explain the reasoning behind it? As I wrote earlier, there is a good reason why someone who opposes the lone-nut theory might want to prevent the spread of extreme conspiracy theories. Can Mr Norwood work out what it is? He also writes: <blockquote>Marita Lorenz may be the most important individual still living who has the potential to set the record straight about Harvey and Lee.</blockquote> Marita Lorenz and Harvey and Lee! Oh dear. I wonder how many of the other extreme conspiracy theories I mentioned in my previous post Mr Norwood finds credible.

Sandy Larsen writes: <blockquote>I'll pay you $1000 to debunk the "Oswald was in two schools simultaneously" evidence.</blockquote> There is a perfectly credible explanation for the apparent inconsistency in Oswald's school records, an explanation which Sandy (and Jim, of course) has so far failed to discuss, presumably because it doesn't require him to believe in a hugely implausible multi-year conspiracy. It can be found here: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records It was written by Greg Parker, who lives in Australia. When Sandy makes the payment, he might bear in mind that the current exchange rate is roughly 1.25 Australian dollars to one US dollar. I'm curious to discover what led Sandy to conclude that I was a "lone nutter". On this forum and elsewhere, I have argued against: - The extreme conspiracy theory that President Kennedy's body was intercepted by an unnamed gang of conspirators without anyone on Air Force One noticing, and then surgically altered to hide evidence that all the shots came from the front, even the shot which hit Governor Connally in the back. - The extreme conspiracy theory that the Zapruder film was substantially altered to conceal evidence which contradicted the lone-nut theory, despite the fact that the allegedly altered film contains strong evidence contradicting that theory, and despite expert opinion that any substantial alteration to the film would be impossible to conceal. - The extreme conspiracy theory that in order to conceal evidence of Oswald standing on the Book Depository's steps, the Altgens 6 photograph was altered by superimposing over Oswald's face the face of someone who looked so much like Oswald that it generated the claim that Oswald was standing on the Book Depository's steps. - The extreme conspiracy theory that two unrelated boys were inducted into a top-secret 'Oswald project' at the age of 12, along with their mothers, each of whom happened to be named Marguerite, in the hope that when the unrelated boys grew up they would turn out to look either identical or merely similar, depending on the needs of the crazy theory at any particular moment. - And the relatively credible theory that President Kennedy was killed to prevent him telling the Soviet regime that little green men from the planet Zog were living among us. How does Sandy reconcile opposition to extreme conspiracy theories with support for the lone-nut theory? There is a good reason why someone who opposes the lone-nut theory might want to prevent the spread of extreme conspiracy theories. Can he work out what it is?