John Butler

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Given that Oswald was an unremarkable-looking young white man, and that he was the subject of the biggest news story in years, and that news stories often generate false sightings of their central characters, we should expect many such sightings to be mistaken.

For each claim of impersonation, several alternative everyday explanations need to be ruled out:

• Could it plausibly have been a case of mistaken identity? The 'Oswald' who was seen with Jack Ruby was surely Larry Crafard, another unremarkable-looking young white man.

I wonder how many other unremarkable young white men were in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area.  Thousands?  Tens of thousands?  Because Larry Crafard worked for Jack Ruby, it doesn't mean he resembled Oswald.  They don't look anything alike.  Maybe someone who has poor facial recognition skills would see a Crafard as an Oswald in a dimly lit Carousal lounge.  Actually, Crafard looks more like Robert Patrick in the Terminator then Oswald.

You might as well say the guy behind Crafard is Oswald.  Or, maybe one of the sailors since they are young and white.

As I said Oswald and Crafard do not look alike except as young white males.  Such a description by the Dallas Police I believe was a dragnet call to catch any suspicious young white male.

They don't look in anything alike.  Too many people have picked out Harvey Oswald as Lee Harvey Oswald.  The real Lee's photos have been destroyed with the exception of just a few that are relatively un-informing.

16 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

100% dead wrong. There's no other way to say this than to point out that your interpretation above is as colossally off-base as the overall "Harvey and Lee" theory. My use of the word "nuance" was meant to distinguish that evidence of Oswald imposture does not mean he was impersonated,

Jonathan and Jeremy,

But, isn't that what evidence is?  Evidence of impersonation does not mean he was impersonated.  Maybe a definition of evidence may clear up the Jeremy's definition of "nuance".

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I check the forum most mornings, scribble whatever I feel like scribbling, then I get on with more interesting and productive (and usually non-JFK-related) activities. I very rarely visit this forum more than once a day.

It seems like you follow my posts all day long.  I guess I am mistaken if you just post once a day.  Or, am I?

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Why did Jim expect an instant reply? Why was he so worked up about something so trivial as what Jonathan and I think about impersonations? Bearing in mind Jim's recent thread in which he seemed to think that the lizard people had been plotting against him to censor his comments, is he feeling OK?

Jeremy B. said the above.  The word processor doesn't work correctly on this second post.

Jeremy,

Are the "lizard people" nuanced?  I might as well ask if they are "bonafided".  I've followed Jim's threads for years.  I don't believe I have ever heard him speak of "lizard people".  Are you making that up?  Where's your source for "lizard People"?  Is it the same source where you get your "nuanced" reasoning?  

On 5/6/2022 at 4:10 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Three witnesses claimed to have seen a young white man on a bus, wearing a blue jacket.

The blue jacket found at the TSBD is WC CE 163.  Here is two photos of CE 163 and a blue jacket Oswald wore in Russia.  Are they the same?

1 and 2 look slightly different.  2 looks like the jacket worn by Oswald in Russia.  

None of these examples is a light blue jacket, or a light grey jacket, or a white/tan jacket.

Was this Oswald's blue jacket?

I can't remember If I have seen a WC exhibit photo.  Is there one available?

8 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

More nonsense.  As I said before, how can you believe that this blue/grey jacket wasn’t seen at the TSBD for days after the assassination?  

Well, Jim, it was not nuanced enough.  That's the simple answer.

I think I am beginning to get the hang of this.  Any time I want to disagree with someone I can say their facts were not nuanced enough to be worthy of consideration.

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I said we agree that there is EVIDENCE Oswald was impersonated. That’s a big difference than saying he WAS impersonated, but nuance doesn’t seem to be a tool wielded very often by you and your devotees…

When I read this, I see that you are really saying nuance (whatever that may be) is more important than evidence.  I have noticed this in your comments when you completely ignore facts and evidence presented to you by other researchers.  Would that be because various facts and pieces of evidence weren't nuanced enough for you to agree they have relevance in your way of thinking. 

So, you can say that there was evidence of Oswald being impersonated, but that doesn't count because he was impersonated in a non-nuanced way?  This about right?  

You say you have never seen any evidence of the Zapruder film being altered.  Yet, when fine fellows like Andrez Stancak posts material such as the following you still stick to your beliefs.

Another thing you might notice Jeremy is that Kennedy has a hairy brain.  There is that big flap of bone and skin hanging down there, but head and hair is still intact.

Sorry, for the crude and gruesome statements.  I told Groden and crew down in Dealey Plaza I could have painted that better.  Gee, they wouldn't talk to me afterwards.  Imagine that.  

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Oswald was impersonated at various points in his life.

I wonder if that goes back to grade school in their thinking?  If so, why would a second grade student be impersonated?  What would they say?  Has JB gone over to conspiracy thinking?  Is he dragging JC along with him?

Enquiring minds want to know.

PS

Jim,

You say that JB says you and John Armstrong wear "tin foil hats".  I was wondering should we get JB and JC "tin foil hats" since they are coming over, however slightly, to the view that Oswald was impersonated at various times in his life.  Amazon has those type of hats.  They are available if they want one.

8 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I’ve thought quite a bit about that too.  I eventually decided it didn’t happen that way for two reasons

Your right.  Other than speculation, there is no good evidentiary means to prove or disprove.  But, it is reasonable if they were being told all along what to wear when visiting certain places.

We know both Oswalds were at the TSBD.  Another good question might be is how often did they do that?  I can't see Harvey working there and Lee just walking in and taking his place on the day of the assassination.  There must have been an adjustment period in order to ensure success by Lee knowing what he was doing.

Good point on Lee not knowing fully about workers and office personnel.      

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

No shooting from the 6th floor? Really? I've heard of shots coming from the 5th floor,but we are going to have to agree to disagree on the 6th floor shooting.

Michael,

That's not a problem.  But, let me make the case for no shooting from the 6th floor.  Here are 11 witness statement from people in the TSBD on the 5th, 4th, 3rd, and 2nd floors.  Initially 3 witnesses said they heard shooting form the 6th floor.  Bonnie Ray Williams, Harold Norman, and Junior Jarman.  Bonnie Ray changed his testimony 4 times, Harold was consistent, and Junior Jarman changed his testimony to the low and left which indicates the Da-Tex.

The other 8 said something different.  Elsie Dorman said shooting came from the Dal-Tex Court Records Building.  The others generally said from the west in the direction of the Grassy Knoll or Triple Underpass.  These witnesses were with 40 feet of the 6th floor window where the alleged shooting came from.  They would have heard the rifle shot coming from the 6th floor if it did.  The problem is they didn't.

Witness Statements:

1.     Harold Norman- 11-26-63 FBI statement Norman said he heard a shot as the vehicle turned onto Elm St.

2.     Bonnie Ray Williams- Sheriff’s Office on 11-22-63- first said he heard shot when the presidential limo turned onto Houston.  Later, he changed that to a turn onto Elm St. and then later changed that.

3.     James “Junior” Jarman- Warren Hearing on March 24, 1964- At first, Jarman said much the same as Williams and Norman.  He later changed his testimony at the WC to hearing shots from low and to the left.  That is shooting from Houston Street.  This could be from the Dal-Tex.

4.     Mary Hollies- 2-18-64 statement to Detective Potts said she heard 3 shots as the motorcade turned into the Elm intersection.  She noticed smoke on a little hill over to the west.  Mary Hollies and Alice Foster are placed with 5^th floor witnesses due to Mary’s 6^th Floor Museum interview in January, 2011.  This contradicts her earlier statements.

5.     Betty Alice Foster-3-19-64 FBI statement- She heard something like fireworks after the President’s car turned down Elm St.

6.      Elsie Dorman- 11-23-63 FBI report, 3-20-64 FBI report.  She thought shots came from the Court Records Building on Houston St.  She became excited and quit filming at the time the President was on Houston Street at the Court Records Building.

7.     Sandra Styles- In a statement made to the FBI on 3-19-64 she said she heard shots but, did not know where they came from and offered no other relevant information.  However, in a video published in October, 2017 she said as the presidential vehicle turned into the Houston and Elm intersection she heard 3 shots.   Reference:  Jobert Jefford Paulson video, Oct. 17, 2017- The Case of the Lady Who Did Not See the Assassin.

8.     Vickie Adams- 11-24-63- She said when the president’s vehicle entered the intersection of Elm and Houston she heard 3 shots.  She could not see the shooting since it happened while the presidential limousine was under trees.  And, that would be in front of the TSBD.

9.     Dorothy Garner- 3-20-64 FBI report- When the shots occurred the presidential vehicle was out of sight, obscured by trees on Elm.  This would be in front of the TSBD.

10. Yola Hopson- 12-1-63- FBI report- She heard two or more sounds / firecrackers when the presidential limousine was obscured by trees on Elm.  This would be in front of the TSBD.

11. Steven Wilson- 3-25-64- FBI statement- He said he heard 3 shots while the president was obscured by trees on Elm.  This would be in front of the TSBD.

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

You believe one of the Oswald doppelgangers was involved in the assassination. The Warren Commission believes Oswald committed the assassination. Looks pretty similar to me!

We don't know that for a fact that one of the Oswalds was involved in the assassination.  I take my cue from Jesse Curry.  He said he could never put Oswald (one Oswald) on the 6th floor with a rifle in his hand.  And, nobody else can either.

I have proven with 4th, 3rd floor, and 2nd floor witnesses that it is very unlikely that anyone fired a rifle from the 6th floor of the TSBD.  Junior Jarman told future president Gerald Ford that he heard a shot "from low and to the left".  Which probably means the Dal-Tex, but could also mean a lower floor of the Court Records building.  The lower floor of the TSBD is out due to the witnesses above.

So, no shooting from the TSBD.  Ergo, no Oswald involved in the assassination.  OTH, Lee Oswald could have been there to set up Harvey by making appearances on the 6th floor before the assassination.  I believe Lee Oswald was the Doorway Man and Harvey was out on Elm Steet filming the p. limo at the time of the shooting.  Later he becomes Prayer Man.  This is speculation.  Harvey sees Lee in the doorway next to Bill Shelley and that later explains his saying he was outside with Bill Shelley when the p. limo passed by.

There has been much talk of what Lee or Harvey were wearing on the day of the assassination.  This garment belongs to Lee and this belongs to Harvey, and so on.  Noone has stated or asked the real question that I know of in this discussion of clothing. 

What if Harvey and Lee had the same clothing?  This would be matching sets.  This would be a requirement to double each other.  Otherwise, how could they get away with impersonating each other at the same place such as the TSBD.  Harvey couldn't show up wearing a collared brown shirt and Lee show up wearing a collared white shirt.  Somebody would notice and put 2 and 2 together to make 4.

Maybe Marina washed two sets of clothing and never let on to anyone.  She did say she had two husbands.  Then I would expect she did household duties for both.

Harvey is in the city until the weekend.  Lee is out and about with Marina setting up Harvey during the week days.  Now wouldn't that be something.

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

You believe one of the Oswald doppelgangers was involved in the assassination

So, you believe there were two Oswalds?  Are you willing to go for three or more?

Jim Hargrove said,

"I’m really astounded by your admission!  All this name-calling and  apparent outrage by you and Mr. B. is just the result of a disagreement about how many times and for how long LHO was impersonated?

I think we have converted JB and JC from their LN positions to Harvey and Lee.  They just don't want to admit it yet.

18 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

More evidence of delusional conspiratorial thinking by John Butler

More "delusional conspiratorial thinking" is really something to think about.  How about the description of John Armstrong, Jim Hargrove, and yours truly being supporters of the Warren Commission due to the Harvey and Lee theory?  Harvey and Lee as a theory supports the WC conclusions.  Can you get many to believe that?  How about yourself?  Do you believe that?

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

John,

Well, it's interesting to see that Mr. B. and Jonathan Cohen "have always agreed that there is evidence Oswald was impersonated at various points in his life."  Perhaps Mr. B. will tell us, specifically, which times Oswald was impersonated.

Jim,

Jeremy and Jonathan as conspiracy theorists defending against that mean old Armstrong guy's support of the Warren Commission.  What blather!

I noticed some time back that Jonathan said he and Jeremy agreed on various things.  Working together?  

On a different note altogether, do you know where one can find information on Tippit and the HSCA.  I'm interested particularly in the discussion of the Tippit autopsy.  There seems to be some controversy over the angle of the bullet and Tippit's head wound.  Any information you can help with will be appreciated.

Now back to those intrepid Conspiracy Theorists Jeremy Bojczuk and Jonathan Cohen. 

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

That's a good point. Important elements of the 'Oswald did it' narrative are identical in both the lone-gunman theory and the 'Harvey and Lee' theory:

• Oswald was on the sixth floor, shooting at JFK;
• he escaped by bus (or one of him did);
• and he shot Officer Tippit.

There really isn't any strong evidence for any of these claims. I get the impression that very few genuine critics of the Warren Report find all of these claims convincing. The 'Harvey and Lee' theory is just the Warren Report with added paranoia.

On the plus side, it's quite entertaining to see Jim Hargrove and John Butler trying to defend important aspects of the Warren Report which few critics take seriously.

Jim,

It's all your fault.  I guess I should throw John Armstrong under the bus,too.  I went to bed last night a firm conspiracy theorist, with some radical views, and I wake up this morning a supporter of the Warren Commission.  I don't know how that happened.  I have some 3000+ posts here on the forum and I can't find even one line suggesting I support the Warren Commission.  I don't think anyone else can either except through the rationalizations of Jeremy Bojczuk.  

But, Jeremy Bojczuk says so.  So, it must be so....  I am an LNer.  I have put Oswald on the 6th floor with a rifle and didn't even know that.  And, Harvey killed Tippit.  Astounding!    

All I can conclude is the man must be a comedian.  He says its entertaining.  Maybe that suggests we are the comedians.

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The 'Harvey and Lee' theory is just the Warren Report with added paranoia.

That line is so far out there I just had to repeat it.  It has to be true since Jeremy Bojczuk said it.   Nah.  Jeremy has gone around a bend that I and others can't or shouldn't follow.  Maybe his twin, Jonathan Cohen, will come on and support Jeremy's conclusions.  I can't think of too many more who would.

40 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Of course there’s a simpler explanation, and it has literally been pointed out to you on this forum over and over again for years: the witnesses were mistaken or confused or making things up, the evidence on which these sightings are based is being interpreted incorrectly after the fact

Jonathan,

That's just wishful thinking on your part.  There are way to many facts for you to wish away.  The explanation is not simple.  This is reality and complex.

On 5/3/2022 at 8:25 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

Yeah, we all have to be conscious of the potential for all kinds of chicanery in this case, unfortunately.  For what it's worth, though, here's how Whaley testified in 1964:

That is far too true.  Fiction and Chicanery were rampant in Dealey Plaza during the assassination and more so after the assassination.  

As far as William Whaley's testimony is concerned it should be considered to be truthful until confounded by other evidence.  I don't see that in the case of Whaley's testimony.  Do we know anything about Whaley's preferences?  One observer says that men just don't pay attention to jewelry such as bracelets.  But, they do. 

So, that notion fails at the starting point.  I owned a jewelry store some years back.  Men are just as vain as women as far as ornamentation goes.

Jim Hargrove has done a note worthy job of speaking to the naysayers on this point and others.

35 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

U.S. Army employee Stuart Reed had apparent foreknowledge of several of the events that day, because he took not only pictures of the TSBD facade and “sniper’s nest” window, but also of Oswald’s arrest at the Texas Theater and even front and back pictures of what might well be McWatters’ bus approaching the TSBD.

 

Where can one find more info on Stuart Reed?  It is curious that he was a US Army employee.  At the ARRB there was a witness who spoke of photographers from Fort Hood, perhaps as many as 50, filming the events of Dealey Plaza with the type of cameras that sent TV info to a central source, if I am remembering this correctly.

23 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. B. suggests forum members read “Sylvia Meagher's Accessories After the Fact, pp. 75-83.”  I’d also suggest they read pp. 359-387 of that fine book, beginning with the heading “Two Oswalds.”

Since Sylvia Meagher is being validated by both Jim and Jeremy (both sides of an argument) I want to get in a shot for Sylvia being correct on the U2 as the basis for Oswald's trip to Russia.

Now, back to the Jim and Jeremy argument on the two Oswalds transportation from the TSBD.  It really isn't necessary for me to tell one which side I support.

Which came first?  Was it Lee Oswald or Harvey Oswald that left the TSBD and obtained transportation first?

Well, if not simultaneous they were within minutes of obtaining the type of transportation they used.  I don't see that as an argument.  What I do see is a challenge to the Harvey and Lee story.  Jim Hargrove has ably defended that position with many of the fine posts made available in this thread.  They are fact filled rather than just assumptions and proclamations produced by the other side of the argument.

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I was rather hoping that Jim would have found a way to reconcile all of this weak evidence into a coherent argument that Oswald was on that bus. Would Jim care to have a go? If he wants us to believe that he and the Warren Commission are correct, it's up to him to demonstrate that Oswald was on that bus.

Jim Hargrove has.  There is a long piece by him refuting the things you claim.  Please read that and recognize that many of the things you claim belong in your favorite category "nonsense".

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

All we have is unreliable witnesses making contradictory claims.

How have you refuted these "unreliable witnesses"?  I don't want to go to another site to see your proclaimed truth.  Can you give it here?

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The bus transfer supposedly found in Oswald's shirt pocket was in pristine condition despite his having been severely manhandled during and after his arrest.

Can you prove this?  Where is your evidence or fact indicating this?

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

There are numerous well-known problems with the Warren Commission and 'Harvey and Lee' argument that Oswald was on McWatters' bus. For a start, the basic presumption is far-fetched: that an assassin fleeing the scene of the crime would get on a bus that was heading straight back to the scene of the crime (not to mention that the bus wasn't heading close to the rooming house which was the supposed assassin's supposed destination).

It is not so far-fetched if the person doesn't or couldn't drive.  Harvey always lived in a large city where it is convenient and less expensive to take a bus or cab rather than own a vehicle.  New York, New Orleans, and Dallas/Ft. Worth.

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

To support his and the Warren Commission's claim that Oswald was on that bus, Jim mentions three pieces of evidence:

• the bus transfer that was supposedly found in Oswald's shirt pocket;
• the claim during his interrogations that Oswald mentioned having taken a bus;
• and the fact that a number of officials were present at his interrogations, with the implication that they reported Oswald's claims accurately.

Plenty of work has been done that casts doubt on Jim's and the Warren Commission's claim. Lee Farley's analysis in particular is very good:

What about the driver William Whaley?  Doesn't his witness statement count?  

Are you saying the FBI and Dallas police were major cover-up conspiracy players?  If so, I'll have to think more kindly of you.