Harvey and Lee

[Bernie Laverick]

Hi Martin,

Three forum members have now politely asked how the originators of this plot could possibly have known that the two chosen adolescents, from different families and countries, would emerge near on facially identical in adulthood.

Why is that such an unreasonable question to ask?

We've asked David but all he wants to do is hurl insults.

I genuinely want to know how Armstrong's supporters rationalise this glaring inconsistency.

If you know, I would dearly love to see the answer.

Best regards,

Bernie

as i have politely asked those on the other side of the line to reconcile all of armstrong's and others facts about the two oswalds in some way -- the knife cuts both ways. so i will try if you promise to do so as well. i will go first but i need your word before i do. and remember i speak and represent only myself and any problems you have with others are your problems with them.

Martin the vile accusation that I am in some way a xxxxx is an appalling slur by David. I don't want to fall out with anyone. I genuinely want to engage in an honest debate. You see Martin what I haven't revealed yet is that...wait for it...I myself was an Armstrong convert! I have posted on here several times supporting his theory!! I can prove it too. Admittedly it was over 5 years ago. But that's what happens doesn't it? You read the arguments for and you read the arguments against. Then you make your mind up. But it is conditional. It can't be set in stone. When better researchers effectively demolish its constituent parts one has to be honest to oneself and admit, I made an honest mistake.

That's how I see my former adherence to Harvey and Lee as an explanation for this conundrum - an honest mistake.

So to call someone who used to believe the theory, who hasn't posted on here for nearly two years, who has never been moderated and who has zero 'warning points' all the names I have been called says more about David Joseph - and by association his fellow supporters - than it does about me.

I will glady engage with you Martin, and in a fraternal manner. I look forward to your response.

[Martin Blank]

Hi Martin,

Three forum members have now politely asked how the originators of this plot could possibly have known that the two chosen adolescents, from different families and countries, would emerge near on facially identical in adulthood.

Why is that such an unreasonable question to ask?

We've asked David but all he wants to do is hurl insults.

I genuinely want to know how Armstrong's supporters rationalise this glaring inconsistency.

If you know, I would dearly love to see the answer.

Best regards,

Bernie

as i have politely asked those on the other side of the line to reconcile all of armstrong's and others facts about the two oswalds in some way -- the knife cuts both ways. so i will try if you promise to do so as well. i will go first but i need your word before i do. and remember i speak and represent only myself and any problems you have with others are your problems with them.

Martin the vile accusation that I am in some way a xxxxx is an appalling slur by David. I don't want to fall out with anyone. I genuinely want to engage in an honest debate. You see Martin what I haven't revealed yet is that...wait for it...I myself was an Armstrong convert! I have posted on here several times supporting his theory!! I can prove it too. Admittedly it was over 5 years ago. But that's what happens doesn't it? You read the arguments for and you read the arguments against. Then you make your mind up. But it is conditional. It can't be set in stone. When better researchers effectively demolish its constituent parts one has to be honest to oneself and admit, I made an honest mistake.

That's how I see my former adherence to Harvey and Lee as an explanation for this conundrum - an honest mistake.

So to call someone who used to believe the theory, who hasn't posted on here for nearly two years, who has never been moderated and who has zero 'warning points' all the names I have been called says more about David Joseph - and by association his fellow supporters - than it does about me.

I will glady engage with you Martin, and in a fraternal manner. I look forward to your response.

all that is neither here nor there for me; my post will be forthcoming all in good time

[Bernie Laverick]

For some reason it won’t let me link threads, but can I refer you to the… “J. D. Tippit: Was he part of the conspiracy?”… thread now on page 5. On page 12, post #166 of that thread you will find these words in response to Duke Lane’s take on the Tippit murder.

…Pure conjecture but I often wonder whether Tippit eventually encountered the ‘wrong’ Oswald. The one he didn’t know! That would certainly explain the initial casual nature of the meeting at 10th and Patten, only turning sinister as Tippit’s suspicions are raised during the course of the conversation, when something just didn’t quite ring right…

…If just one witness from each of the alternative scenarios (The two get-aways) is correct we know for certain that there were indeed two Oswalds…

…Could it have been the realisation that the person he (Tippit) was conversing with was not the same person he was looking for? Spookily similar, but not the same…

And so on… Yes they were my words. Duke ripped me to shreds of course, but unlike David, he did with style and class and forensic argument. The end result was that I learned something.

Also, please read my respectful posts to Duke despite not agreeing with him, and tell me I'm a xxxxx!

[Martin Blank]

as i said earlier i am not getting involved in that nonsense so i don't need to see any of it; i can disappear anytime

[Thomas Graves]

For some reason it won’t let me link threads, but can I refer you to the… “J. D. Tippit: Was he part of the conspiracy?”… thread now on page 5. On page 12, post #166 of that thread you will find these words in response to Duke Lane’s take on the Tippit murder.

…Pure conjecture but I often wonder whether Tippit eventually encountered the ‘wrong’ Oswald. The one he didn’t know! That would certainly explain the initial casual nature of the meeting at 10th and Patten, only turning sinister as Tippit’s suspicions are raised during the course of the conversation, when something just didn’t quite ring right…

…If just one witness from each of the alternative scenarios (The two get-aways) is correct we know for certain that there were indeed two Oswalds…

…Could it have been the realisation that the person he (Tippit) was conversing with was not the same person he was looking for? Spookily similar, but not the same…

And so on… Yes they were my words. Duke ripped me to shreds of course, but unlike David, he did with style and class and forensic argument. The end result was that I learned something.

Also, please read my respectful posts to Duke despite not agreeing with him, and tell me I'm a xxxxx!

Bernie,

Thanks for sharing that with us.

--Tommy

[Bernie Laverick]

as i said earlier i am not getting involved in that nonsense so i don't need to see any of it; i can disappear anytime

What "nonsense"? I'm showing you proof that I used to post on here in support of your theory. Doesn't that carry some weight towards my honest intentions? It's a thread where I take on Duke Lane by implying that "Lee" was Tippit's killer while "Harvey" was waiting in the cinema. Preposterous as that may sound now, I firmly believed it at the time. Duke's patient explanations and answers were the beginnings of making me look at this again and again and again.

So I'm a bit disappointed that instead of the promised answer to our most basic question, I get an admonition and an assurance that you won't be involving yourself in that "nonsense".

[B. A. Copeland]

Do we know the chain of custory concerning Lee's handgun that he brandished at the Theatre? This thought hit me today and unfortunately I have not read as many accurate books as I'd like to regarding the subject. I wonder if the malfunctioning firing pin was a coincidence or not.

[Thomas Graves]

Do we know the chain of custody concerning Lee's handgun that he brandished at the Theatre? This thought hit me today and unfortunately I have not read as many accurate books as I'd like to regarding the subject. I wonder if the malfunctioning firing pin was a coincidence or not.

B.A.,

Do you mean Lee's handgun, or Harvey's? Or Lee's, or Harvey's.....?

LOL

--Tommy

Edited March 7, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

Do we know the chain of custory concerning Lee's handgun that he brandished at the Theatre? This thought hit me today and unfortunately I have not read as many accurate books as I'd like to regarding the subject. I wonder if the malfunctioning firing pin was a coincidence or not.

Hi B.A... nice to see you.

The following is a composite of all the physical evidence related to Seaport's receiving, processing and shipping of the order, supposedly from January 1963 and not shipped until the same day the rifle is shipped.

Mr. BALL. I hand you a document which has been marked Commission Exhibit No. 135. (the mail order coupon) Will you examine that and tell me whether or not you ever saw that before?

Mr. MICHAELIS. I saw it the first time on November the 30th.

Mr. BALL. The first time?

Mr. MICHAELIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. And where did you find that? Where was it when you saw it on November 30?

Mr. MICHAELIS. It was attached to our invoice No. 5371, in the records, the red copy.

Mr. BALL. Now, this particular mail order, did you have anything to do with filling that order?

Mr. MICHAELIS. No

Mr. BALL. And it shows deposit, $10. Balance c.o.d., $19.95. What is the significance of that?

Mr. MICHAELIS. We received, together with the order, the amount of $10 in cash. Since the sales price is $29.95, the merchandise was shipped with a c.o.d for the balance of $19.95

Mr. MICHAELIS. Yes; Mr. Rose usually opens the mail and distributes the mail. This particular order would have gone to the person in charge at that time of the Seaport Traders, who was Emma Vaughn.

Mr. BALL. Who?

Mr. MICHAELIS. Emma Vaughn, V-a-u-g-h-n.

Mr. BALL. Then what would have happened?

Mr. MICHAELIS. She would have processed the order in writing up invoice No. 5371. After 1 week she gave out the order to the order filler and packer

At the very latest this coupon is dated 1/27/63... (enlargement bottom right) The invoice date is 3/13/63....

Mr. BALL. It is given a No. DL-29. Will you describe it, please? (Exhibit #4)

Mr. MICHAELIS. Yes; that is a copy of the receipt which we got from the Railway Express Agency showing that on March 20, 1963, one carton with a pistol was shipped to A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. It shows, furthermore, that Railway Express is instructed to collect a c.o.d. fee of $19.95. And it shows furthermore the number of the original receipt, which is 70638.

...

Mr. BALL. Does it identify the invoice in any way?

Mr. MICHAELIS. No.

....

Mr. MICHAELIS. This document is required in addition by the Railway Express Agency for all c.o.d. shipments, and indicates again the name of the consignee, his address, and lists our invoice number which is, in this case, No. 5371. It directs the Railway Express Agency to remit the amount to be collected to Seaport Traders, Inc. The amount of the c.o.d. is $19.95, and the service charge has to be collected from the consignee.

Mr. BALL. I would like to have that marked as Exhibit 5.

Mr. BALL. Is there anything in your files which shows that the Railway Express did remit to you the $19.95?

Mr. MICHAELIS. The fact that the exhibit number--may I see this green one?

Mr. BALL. Five.

Mr. MICHAELIS. Was attached to the red copy of the invoice.

Mr. BALL. Red copy of the invoice being----

Mr. MICHAELIS. No; was attached to the red copy of the invoice, exhibit number----

Mr. BALL. Two.

Mr. MICHAELIS. Indicates that the money was received.

The sequence then is

1) Seaport receives the coupon dated as late as 1/27/63 with a $10 CASH deposit - no envelope ala Kleins is offered and no record of a $10 deposit related to that order is offered

2) Invoice 5371 is created on 3/13/63, 7 weeks after the date on the coupon

3) The order is packed and prepared for Railway - Exh #5 -

4) Railway provides Exh #4 back to Seaport completing the transactions with a promise to submit the $19.95 to Seaport and to keep the $1.27 Shipping charge

5) Proof of delivery and payment is, according to Michaelis, strictly that one receipt is attached to another - there is no record of the $21.22 paid to retrieve the shipment for the COD, and since the mailing address is a PO Box... REA notifies the consignee that they have a package to pick-up and pay for....

6) There remains no record of a notice, no record of a pick-up, no record of a payment, no record or REA sending Seaport payment, no record of REA collecting its COD charge....

While this evidence is easily available within the WCR exhibits, Gil took the necessary additional steps to quantify the charade.... he notes that the order on the coupon was for a $29.95 .38 St. W 2" Bbl

yet the documentation shows they prepared a a different pistol - exactly like the Rifle order - as opposed to the one ordered.... a pistol that remarkably is listed on the order form a few rows up, and is the pistol of choice at the side of virtually every Dallas Policeman, a .38 Special 2" Commando.

And. much like the Rifle, there is no record of ammunition every being purchased... while the ammo taken from him oddly appears as if taken from a leather gunbelt like those worn by police officers....

Like the rifle, the FBI created the necessary evidence - but only up to a point - never actually believing any of this would see the light of day... an open and shut case...

I hope this helps B.A. Take care

DJ

http://www.giljesus.com/Tippit/handgun.htm

If a shipment of a firearm was to a Post Office Box, REA's procedure was to leave a notice in the form of a postcard, notifying the addressee where to pick the package up and of any outstanding charges

....

In fact NO ONE FROM RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY was ever called to testify about the sale of the handgun.

[David Lifton]

I'm inclined to agree with Martin Blank in that I feel the theory makes sense out of chaos, and I have no problem believing that Angleton could be so clever. The most difficult part for me is believing that Lee was born in Russia, and Harvey in the US, and that having such different physical descriptions growing up they somehow ended up close in size and weight and looking so much alike. Is plastic surgery the explanation for this?

Good point Paul and one which I have many times asked. You won't get an answer because the very idea is too ludicrous to even imagine so they'll just ignore that inconvenient anomaly. It seems it was just pure luck that they happened to grow up looking as near as damn it identical. But when you say that there will be a flurry of posts saying that they DON'T neccessarily look alike at all. (Both Dawn and David have argued that point with me before)

Take a look at post 7 by David...they look pretty identical to me.

So can someone in the H/L cult please explain this? Did the originators of this dastardly plot KNOW that H/L were going to emerge from adolescence looking identical? If so...how?

Could it have worked if Lee had grown into a 24 stone dwarf? Would it have worked if Harvey had shot up like a basketball player in his late teens or developed a skin disease (such things happen all the time). Where would that have left this 'clever' plan by Angleton? Did they just cross their fingers and hope that these two 13 year olds from different families and different countries would conveniently grow up to resemble each other

Was it important that the 'impersonator' looked like the person he was impersonating? I mean, whoever heard of an impersonator who looks nothing like the person he is impersonating? So all these paper chasing anomolies count for nothing other than slopping more mud into the water. Until you can explain how they knew that these two pre-adolescents were going to grow into one entity so alike that they could be interchangeable Armstrong's theory just comes a cross as yet another kooky explanation along the lines of "Jackie did it!" or "Greer did it" or "Elvis did it"...

I don't expect any honest answers; the proponents of this theory are even more dishonestly evangelical than the SBT mongers, only ten times more damaging. No wonder Mr Mainstream writes us all off as freaks and 'head-the-balls'!

I despair.

You know, I'd have more respect if Armstrong's supporters would at least be honest about this Everest sized obstacle to the whole sorry theory and say..."Yes, I agree that is problematical". But they won't.

Please don't implore me to read the whole book David. You've had years now to tease out the most compelling parts; none of you have sold it. Why would I want to wade through a huge tome when its proponents refuse to answer simple questions about the gaping holes?

It's a religion...and not a very good one at that!

Bernie,

You and I were both participants in a debate about "Harvey and Lee" a few years ago, and I basically support your commentary.

I cannot afford to spend much time on this post, but perhaps I can make just a few points:

ITEM: I just took my Harvey and Lee off the shelf and confirmed what I had remembered: nowhere in the index of this 966 page volume appears the names James Humes (the chief autopsy doctor); Boswell (his chief assistant); Sibert and O'Neill, the two FBI agents at the autopsy. How anyone can write a book on the Kennedy assassination and cavalierly ignore the medical evidence is beyond me. But that's what Armstrong does, and that alone constitutes a good reason for being prepared not to take seriously what else he has to say. The key to the entire Kennedy assassination begins with an understanding that there was fraud in the medical evidence. If you set out to write a book about this case, and completely ignore the autopsy, then what kind of a foundation is being laid for understanding what happened in Dealey Plaza?

ITEM: I knew Armstrong and had quite a bit of contact with him around the summer of 1995. On the one hand, I admired the fact that he had the financial wherewithal (and the will) to travel halfway around the world (for example) and visit the city in Switzerland that was the location of Albert Schweitzer College (where Oswald applied, prior to leaving the Marines, for a Spring term beginning around April, 1960).. Kudos for him (and for that)--and I appreciated the fact that he shared his impressions with me. All very well. But, in one conversation after another, I found him to be a really poor analyst of basic data, governed by this peculiar dogma that every time he encountered a conflict of information, he would posit the existence of "two Oswalds" to explain it. He was clearly involved in a major "collection" effort--again, Kudos for that. But the problem was that every time Armstrong came upon a contradiction, he immediately rushed to interpret it as evidence of his 'two Oswald' hypothesis. Furthermore, there was no debating these points with him. For whatever reason, he was absolutely wedded to the idea that there were two separate individuals, and that "explained everything" --my quotes. This notion was basic to his thinking, and it was no use attempting to persuade him otherwise--i.e., that there were more reasonable interpretations for just about every single "contradiction" that he found. So whether it was conflicts of information over dates, or different heights, or whatever- - always the "explanation" (my quotes) was "two Oswalds."

Now on the subject of specifics:

ITEM: In September/October, 1994, I interviewed--both on the phone and then on camera--Palmer McBride, Oswald's co-worker at Pfisterer Dental Laboratories in the Spring of 1956. There are a fistful of FBI reports covering Oswald's employment there, at that time. And it is well known that McBride--who (unfortunately) was not called as a Warren Commission witness, mistakenly said he knew Oswald there in 1957 or 1958. At the time of my interview, McBride readily admitted that the original statement he made on November 23, 1963 (at the Florida Air Force Base where he was stationed) was simply wrong; that he had incorrectly recollected when he knew Oswald. Indeed, that was an understandable error. At the time of the Kennedy assassination, McBride was recollecting an event from seven years in the past. However, the tax records make clear that Oswald was employed at Pfisterer Dental Labs in the Spring of 1956. Again: in his 11/23/63 McBride mistakenly stated he knew Oswald in 1957/58. On this simple error (by McBride) rests much of Armstrong's entire hypothesis that there was one "Oswald" in New Orleans (when McBride supposedly "knew him," based on the mistaken statement made on 11/23) and another in Japan (based on the USMC records showing that Oswald arrived in Japan in September, 1957, and remained in the Far East for about a year).

ITEM: Sometime after my filmed interview with McBride (October, 1994), Armstrong (or perhaps one of his minions) got hold of McBride, and caused him to rethink his story--perhaps persuading him (this is my conjecture) that I had somehow talked him out of some very valuable "truth." Well, that just wasn't the case. But after that, Armstrong then got involved with McBride in what I call a "witness recruitment program." Gone was the reality of what McBride told me--fortunately, it is all preserved camera. What then flowed forth was (according to Armstrong, anyway) this "other" reality, in which McBride then claimed that yup, he had been misled by me; and that yup, he knew Oswald in 1957/58, just as he originally stated. But. . what about the tax records? Read on. . .

ITEM: Enter Doug Horne, and the ARRB (1995-1998). It became very important, while the ARRB was in existence, to obtain the Oswald tax records, because they would show just when Lee Oswald was employed at Pfisterer Dental Labs. (Note: The Pfisterer employment records were lost, or destroyed, in a flood). Anyway, with Doug Horne leading the way, the tax records were in fact obtained. And what did they show?--that Oswald was employed at Pfisterer in 1956. (Not 1957; not 1958. 1956.) So, if Armstrong were a reasonable person, that would have been the end of it, i.e., the end of this foolish and unsupportable idea that while Lee Oswald was in Japan (where he arrived in Sept/October, 1957), there was "another Oswald" back in New Orleans. The whole idea was ludicrous, from the outset, but the tax records should have marked the end of it. Unfortunately, that was not the case. Because Armstrong seems (to me, anyway) incapable of saying, "Ooops. . I was wrong." And so Armstrong's reaction to the tax records was to erect an "auxiliary hypothesis" (again, my quotes) that the tax records were falsified. (Yes! That the IRS information was false; and that Oswald's W-2's were false, etc.) But that is absurd, and there is no credible evidence to support it. But that's what Armstrong maintained. And then came more. . .(with Armstrong, there is always "more," in the form of a "supporting cast". . . Read on.)

ITEM: Linda Faircloth of Pfisterer Labs. Somehow, Armstrong recruited Linda Faircloth --who had been at Pfisterer in some capacity--to provide "corroboration" for his hypothesis (based on her recollection), even though what she said was completely opposed to the tax records. No matter, she was treated (by Armstrong) as a valid "witness." Indeed, she provided him with a recorded statement, which he played at one or more symposiums, attacking me, and completely misrepresenting what occurred the one time I called Ms. Faircloth, and attempted to interview her. In short, Armstrong's witness was far more than that--she was a fierce advocate of his theory (!). Now, changing the subject. . .

ITEM: The supposed problem (or "contradiction", my quotes) between the New York City school records --for the 8th grade, and specifically, the end of the fall term 1953 (in NYC) and the spring term, 1954 (in New Orleans). I don't see it. Its very clear (to me, anyway) that Marguerite drove--with Lee--from New York City to New Orleans, at the tail end of December, 1953, and that Lee then was registered at Beauregard Junior High School by about January 13, 1954. Trying to build any minor inconsistencies into a hypothesis that there were "two Oswalds" is, imho, unwarranted and in fact just plain silly. But not to Armstrong. To him its a reality. (Unfortunately).

Here is a question I have asked myself: if a person's methodology is so completely misguided as to come up with this bizarre hypothesis (for which there is no credible evidence) is there any value to keeping his 900 plus page book on my bookshelf? The answer is "yes." Armstrong has put in years of his life collecting data, and it is the "collection effort" that does in fact have value. (In this regard, there is one item which he provided which I will be citing in Final Charade. So, for example, if one wishes to know just how many witnesses there are who told the FBI that they saw Oswald leave the area in front of the TSBD by getting into a station wagon, you can open Armstrong's book, and find them all listed there. It matters not that he personally believes there are "two Oswads"--the fact is that, in connection with his "collection effort," he has snagged all of those documents and listed them on one page (see p. 823, and 952). But his interpretation is--imho--ridiculous. And his text is cluttered up with these constant distractions, in the form of references to "Harvey" and "Lee". Reading any section of his tome is like wearing a set of glasses with the wrong prescription. The image is there, but its all out of focus and distorted.

OK. . enough said.

(Below my typed signature is the text of a post I wrote to another JFK researcher in September, 2012. (I am not certain that I actually posted it, but it nicely sums up my beliefs about Armstrong).

And I want to add this one caveat: that I do not mean to rule out the possibility that, in the months leading up to the assassination, its possible that there was one or more instances of impersonation. I do not know that was the case, but it is certainly possible. However, that doesn't justify putting all one's eggs in that basket, and putting on the kind of distorting lenses worn by Armstrong and then interpreting every single conflict of information in the official records as evidence of "two Oswalds." And then writing a 900 plus page book in which "Harvey" and "Lee" appear in bold face, hundreds of times, as the author describes his version of the "reality" of what happened on 11/22.

DSL

3/7/14; 9:10 PM PST

Los Angeles, California

TEXT OF POST WRITTEN IN 2012 to ANOTHER POSTER

The basic FBI files on the “Oswald investigation” –i.e., CD 5, 6, 7, 205, 329, 735, etc. –is a perfectly reasonable “biographical investigation.”

Of course, it could have been better and more complete.

But the real problem is not with those FBI reports—the problem is with what Armstrong tries to do with them.

In his book, he “spins” those reports (and a number of situations related to those underlying reports) and tries to imply, for example, that the witnesses who knew Oswald in the Spring of 1956 really knew him later—e.g., 1957 or 1958.

Then, he went out into the field, and “sold” them—or some of them—on his hypothesis.

Then, having “sold” them, he returned—this would be decades later—and conducted filmed interviews (which don’t mean a thing); and then he comes back and writes it up, and some folks, reading all this years later, take all that seriously.

By and large, that kind of investigation is worthless.

He attempts to have McBride knowing Oswald in a year or two after he actually he did; he has this goofy lady Linda Faircloth offering “corroboration” (even those what she says contradicts the tax records) and he attempts to cast doubt on the year it was when LHO paid a visit (or two) to the New Orleans Amateur Astronomy Association.

It is very clear, from the testimony (and the original FBI reports) that Oswald went to a meeting (possibly, two) in the late spring of 1956. But by the time Armstrong is through with his investigation (which I have called a “witness recruitment program”) he has got a case going that it was really 1957 or 1958.

So I thoroughly disagree with your statement “Arguing the WC "evidence" is not even worth reading. (imho).” Sorry, but that’s just misguided and, in fact, absurd. To the contrary, it’s the WC evidence (in the area of Oswald’s teenage years) that is the most reliable. What’s “not even worth reading” –imho—is the text of HARVEY AND LEE, which often spins the evidence, comes up with false facts, and constructs a biography of Lee Oswald which is completely false and built around this “Harvey and Lee” nonsense.

Another example—besides the matter of McBride –is where he attempts to assert that Oswald when to Stripling, which he certainly did not. Again, we have Armstrong producing witnesses through his “witness recruitment program.”

Some of the data Armstrong collected is interesting, even important; but his interpretation(s) are often way off the mark.

Having had personal contact with Armstrong –particularly in the area of McBride and Faircloth—I know all too well how he pulls these “double Oswald” rabbits out of the hat. Its all illusory, and not worth wasting time on.

DSL

A REQUEST: To avoid confusion, please refer to me as "DSL" or "David L" since there's another "David" who posts prominently on this thread. Thanks.

Edited March 8, 2014 by David Lifton

[Bernie Laverick]

I do indeed recall that thread DSL, I believe it was the last time I engaged on this forum, precisely because every thread seemed to be infested with this nonsense.

I remember that David Josephs had a very tough time trying to comprehend how the school terms start and finish. LHO started at Beauregard Junior High School on January 13th 1954, enjoying the last two weeks of that academic year's Fall semester. A full term included two semesters consisting of 89 days (Fall) and 90 days (Spring). The Fall semester normally ends in December but it wasn't unusual in some places for it to last until the end of January. To calculate attendance one simply subtracts from those totals any absences.

But Armstrong and his followers make the presumption that when, against Oswald's attendance record, we see 89 days and 1 absence (for the Fall semester) they take it to mean ATTENDED 89 days with one absence. To corroborate this they cite the Spring semester records which, to them, say ATTENDED 90 day with 5 absences They say no such thing. They simply say for that semester there were 90 days and Oswald was absent for 5 of them

That Oswald may have had one absence in the Fall semester doesn't negate him starting in January, that is, the last two weeks of said semester. It simply says that in January he had one day off!

What's all the suspicion about?

Well, because without this deliberate misrepresentation of the evidence this whole sorry diversion crumbles to pieces.

#edit (grammar)

Edited March 8, 2014 by Bernie Laverick

[Bernie Laverick]

I keep asking this very simple question yet still I have had no takers... Martin?

Did the originators of this plot KNOW that H/L were going to emerge from adolescence looking identical?

Or was that an added bonus they couldn't have foreseen?

Why the coyness in answering this?

[Bernie Laverick]

I thought I would share this little delightfully polite exchange David and I had only two years ago on this very subject.

Posted 24 September 2012 - 02:43 AM

'David Josephs', on 23 Sept 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

Quote

So again I ask; how coincidental would it be for two unrelated boys, whose identities are being manipulated into one single entity for future espionage purposes over a seven year period, fortuitously and beyond anyone's intervention, also grow to strongly resemble each other as well? The odds are too mind-blowing to even contemplate. Wouldn't you agree?

If you're asking what the odds are of two boys from the late 30's growing up to look alike... it would take some work (I'min the idds business)... yet I still think you have missed the point... the likeness is really not all that similiar... and I don;t understand why I cannot convey that to you...

I do NOT believe the LEE was used to impersonate HARVEY... LEE was always Lee... the mystery is who HARVEY was and that HE becomes the Marine who defects... WE say they looked alike from the images, but they don't... they look similiar...

I cannot tell you the "plan" for how and why OSwald was created... CIA?? KBG?? other? I don't know Bernie... What I do know is the "plan" makes sense in the context of the times... the more I study the TIMES the more I appreciate the level of depravity in the planning and implementation of COUNTER intelligence and the attempts to uncover it.

I wish I could give you more... besides the books avaiable

DJ

No David I'm not just asking, what "the odds are of two boys from the late 30's growing up to look alike"?...I'm asking that about two boys who are also the subject of a long term intelligence plan that has had their identities manipulated to create one entity.

WE say they looked alike from the images, but they don't... they look similiar

But apparently similar enough to share a face on an ID card! There are differences in some of those photos above, no question. Especially the 1959 'Lee' who looks nothing like ANY of the others (but that one was taken by Robert who apparently knew 'both' so we shouldn't take that photo seriously anyway!). But all those others are either the same person or someone spookily like him, surely you must see that.

My further skepticism is fuelled by the lack of 'legs' this theory has generated beyond what can be read from H/L. Where is the avalanche of further information corroborating the theory, above and beyond Armstrong's research? How many new people have come forward, say from BJHS or from his marines days further underlining and solidifying the H/L scenario?

I cannot tell you the "plan" for how and why OSwald was created... CIA?? KBG?? other? I don't know Bernie... What I do know is the "plan" makes sense in the context of the times... the more I study the TIMES the more I appreciate the level of depravity in the planning and implementation of COUNTER intelligence and the attempts to uncover it.

David, I have read your work on here for many years now...quite a fan I am. You never descend to the gutter and you passionately argue your case nearly always with well thought out, well researched reasoning. I have not made even a fraction of the contribution you have made to the ideas on this forum... but, the above statment I find quite amazing for a researcher of your standing.

That something is possible is no proof that it has been done. That it is consistent with the type of subterfuge of the time also isn't proof that it was therefore done. How do you not know what the plan was for the how and the why...but know that it "makes sense"?

When I first came across the whole Harve/Lee a few years ago I thought it was "exciting". Exotic almost. I wanted to believe it. I wanted to believe it, if not to see illustrated the lengths and depths some intelligence agencies went in order to create an advantage during the Cold War. But the more I read the more I realise it's a diversion...like all the others. It's a red herring. It's an avenue that leads over a cliff. Like the extreme Zapruder claims. It's the same pattern as well. Evidence of some tampering is tarnished because of the extreme claims of total tampering. I believe it is the same with the impersonation of Oswald, the truth is being hidden by this extreme version of such impersonation.

Talking of the depravity in the planning and implementation of COUNTER intelligence would that depravity extend to compiling a massive tome of facts, dates documents and records which teases out any anomolies that could then be glued to a Hollywood scripted premise? That would be a much cheaper way of covering tracks surely? Just a thought.

Best regards,

Bernie

[Guest Robert Morrow]

I utter reject John Armstrong's thesis that there were 2 Oswalds: a Harvey and a Lee. This is one of the most hare-brained theories in all of JFK research. I find nothing to validate that theory. It is so bad that it makes me question the rest of Armstrong's work.

Just awful. I have the man's book - I've had it for years - I utter reject his conclusions on this topic.

The great canards in JFK research are: 1) Two Oswalds theory (I can grant impersonation, identity theft though) 2) the 3 tramps were a part of the plot 3) the Zapruder Film was altered beyond a few missing frames which did occur 4) Oswald is standing in the TSBD doorway in the Altgens phone... that is a starter list for some really bad JFK research.

[Bernie Laverick]

David Josephs wrotes earlier in this thread...

Maybe tell us why his JR High school records from NYC, Ft Worth and NOLA were so important, and why they reveal alteration and manipulation...

You can't since you haven't a clue what I'm talking about... but you still can have that uniformed opinion and ask cute rhetorical questions...

See above for the answer. I can't help you if you refuse to learn how to read the records....