A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

[Jim Hargrove]

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Not only that, but by the time of his exhumation in 1981, the fictional 'Harvey' had somehow managed to acquire a scar from a mastoidectomy operation, despite not having had such an operation during 'his' fictional lifetime.

According to 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine, the operation had been carried out on 'Lee', not 'Harvey'. That tells you all you need to know about this nonsensical theory, which can't even get its basic plot line straight.

In the real world, of course, the operation was carried out on the historical, real, and far from imaginary Lee Harvey Oswald, whose body it was that was exhumed in 1981.

Who the hell do you think you’re kidding?  During the very era of the early Oswald Project, the CIA was already starting to poison thousands of unwitting Americans with LSD as part of its infamous  MKUltra project.  Do you seriously think officers in an out-of-control agency like that would hesitate to give a boy an unnecessary mastoidectomy so his health records would match the kid whose identity he shared and soon took over?

On the floor of the U.S. Senate, Ted Kennedy said in 1977:

The Deputy Director of the CIA revealed that over thirty universities and institutions were involved in an "extensive testing and experimentation" program which included covert drug tests on unwitting citizens "at all social levels, high and low, native Americans and foreign." Several of these tests involved the administration of LSD to "unwitting subjects in social situations."

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Anything that supports the H&L theory wherever it comes from is legitimate. And anything that doesn't support H&L is fake.

 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Bullcrap! Jim gives the evidence that exposes the lies. And you choose to ignore that evidence.

 

Thanks, Sandy.  I really appreciate the original work you've done on this issue and others such as the Magic Money Order.  I never worry about arguing on behalf of John Armstrong's work, because his careful research and his detailed write-ups always stand up to the toughest scrutiny.  All the critics can do, for the most part, is cheat.  We're seeing that right here, eh?

[Michael Walton]

Who the hell do you think you’re kidding?  During the very era of the early Oswald Project, the CIA was already starting to poison thousands of unwitting Americans with LSD as part of its infamous  MKUltra project.  Do you seriously think officers in an out-of-control agency like that would hesitate to give a boy an unnecessary mastoidectomy so his health records would match the kid whose identity he shared and soon took over?

On the floor of the U.S. Senate, Ted Kennedy said in 1977:

The Deputy Director of the CIA revealed that over thirty universities and institutions were involved in an "extensive testing and experimentation" program which included covert drug tests on unwitting citizens "at all social levels, high and low, native Americans and foreign." Several of these tests involved the administration of LSD to "unwitting subjects in social situations."

----

Really Jim? So now just because the government was giving people LSD you're lumping that together with "Well, if they did that then yes they gave Oswald a mastoid just so it would match up with his clone." You're just assuming things here with absolutely no proof that this took place. But according to you, 1 plus 1 equals three.

The lies continue and you should be ashamed of yourself, especially because you mislead people on this forum because they don't know any better. This whole Harvey and Lee nonsense is as bad as the fake moon landings "theory."

[Jim Hargrove]

Thanks for your opinions, Michael.  It is amazing that you share them so freely while openly admitting that you don't even know the basics of Harvey and Lee.  

[Michael Walton]

Is this Harvey or Lee?

I'm confident it's Harvey due to the wide face, the pricked back ears, and the ears being low and further back.  Also the ear curl. It's troubling though because the toy train looks American made. No such toy train has ever been made in Hungary nor in Russia...only in America. So if this Harvey, born in Hungary and with parents who soon die and he becomes an orphan, but who will soon be linked up with his mother who has a unibrow but looks like the other Oswald, who has a happy smiling demeanor (quoted by Jim here):

LEE Oswald took leave and resided with his tall, nice-looking mother in her apartment

Then the boy on the American made train simply cannot be the Hungarian born Harvey.

[Sandy Larsen]

50 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

The lies continue and you should be ashamed of yourself, especially because you mislead people on this forum because they don't know any better. This whole Harvey and Lee nonsense is as bad as the fake moon landings "theory."

Bull! You're the one misleading people. You pretend that the conflicts don't exist or can be explained away as simple errors. In contrast Jim provides concrete evidence.

What Jim said about the CIA possibly giving a mastoidectomy was obviously conjecture.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

Is this Harvey or Lee?

I'm confident it's Harvey due to the wide face, the pricked back ears, and the ears being low and further back.  Also the ear curl. It's troubling though because the toy train looks American made. No such toy train has ever been made in Hungary nor in Russia...only in America. So if this Harvey, born in Hungary and with parents who soon die and he becomes an orphan, but who will soon be linked up with his mother who has a unibrow but looks like the other Oswald, who has a happy smiling demeanor (quoted by Jim here):

LEE Oswald took leave and resided with his tall, nice-looking mother in her apartment

Then the boy on the American made train simply cannot be the Hungarian born Harvey.

Michael,

You're obviously wrong.  That's clearly either Harold or Henry.  They looked very much alike at times.

--  Tommy

Edited April 7, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

 

Quote

During the very era of the early [and completely fictitious] Oswald Project, the CIA was already starting to poison thousands of unwitting Americans with LSD as part of its infamous  MKUltra project.  Do you seriously think officers in an out-of-control agency like that would hesitate to give a boy an unnecessary mastoidectomy so his health records would match the kid whose identity he shared and soon took over?

I'm glad Jim is at last acknowledging that the mastoidectomy on the body in Oswald's grave is fatal to the 'Harvey and Lee' theory put forward in his holy book. He attempts to resolve the contradiction by speculating that not only was 'Lee' given a mastoidectomy at the age of six but so was the fictional character 'Harvey', just on the off-chance that his body might need to be dug up years later. Nothing far-fetched about that!

It's instructive to look at the reasoning that Jim uses:

- The CIA was prepared to "poison thousands of unwitting Americans with LSD".
- This was a bad thing.
- Giving a six-year-old boy an unnecessary mastoidectomy would also be a bad thing.
- If the CIA was capable of doing the first bad thing, it was also capable of doing the second bad thing.

I won't argue about the CIA's ethics. It has done far worse things than give people doses of LSD. But that isn't the point.

The point is not that it is a bad thing to subject a six-year-old boy to an unnecessary mastoidectomy. The point is that it is ridiculously far-fetched to imagine that a six-year-old boy, for whose existence there is not the slightest piece of credible documentary evidence, should have been given an unnecessary surgical operation so that his medical history would match that of a completely unrelated six-year-old boy who, like the first boy, had been chosen for a dastardly secret plot, for whose existence there is not the slightest piece of credible documentary evidence, in the remote hope that the two boys would grow up to look alike, and who, like the first boy, happened to have a mother named Marguerite. Oh, and one of the boys was the child of Hungarian refugees, for whose existence there is again not the slightest piece of credible documentary evidence, and who, despite being Hungarian, somehow managed to be native speakers of a completely unrelated language, Russian, a skill they passed onto their wholly fictitious offspring.

The choice is between this absurd fantasy and the fully documented and internally consistent account of one person, named Lee Harvey Oswald, who underwent a mastoidectomy operation at the age of six, who appears to have been impersonated on at least one occasion, who learned Russian to a level that many well-motivated people could reach, and who was buried in Fort Worth. The obvious conclusion is that the internally contradictory 'Harvey and Lee' story is just that: a story, a made-up piece of fiction that only the most gullible and paranoid of readers can possibly fall for.

It's worth noting that Jim's faulty reasoning - because the CIA does bad things, it must have the power to do ridiculously improbable things - is not limited to the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense. It also crops up in other examples of the moon-landings category of JFK theory. For instance, because the CIA (or alternative Bad Guy organisation; plenty are available to choose from) does bad things, it must possess the magical ability to have altered the Altgens or Moorman photographs or the Zapruder or Muchmore films, or to have whisked JFK's corpse away from Air Force One without anyone in the plane or on the ground noticing, or to have wounded Connally in the back with a bullet fired from in front. Same faulty reasoning, different nonsense.

[Michael Walton]

Michael,

You're obviously wrong.  That's clearly either Harold or Henry.  They looked very much alike at times.

----------------------

GOSH DARN IT! I just can't keep track of this thing! Jim? Sandy? Michael C? Allistar? Can you help me out here?

[Michael Walton]

theory put forward in his holy book. 

-----------------

Why, whatever do you mean, Jeremy? There's only one holy book on this Earth and that, too, was written by confused old men. 

[Michael Walton]

Sandy - What Jim said about the CIA possibly giving a mastectomy was obviously conjecture.

--------

Uh, right, Sandy. I applaud you for using your keen analytical skills to determine that Jim's "the CIA was giving LSD to everyone so therefore they also gave the young clone a mastoid" statement was nothing more than conjecture.

Now, if you could please just use your keen analytical skills to conclude that this *entire fairy tale* is also conjecture, innuendo, and a con job to sell books to an unsuspecting public, then we can all go home and leave John, Jim and the rest behind.

[Jim Hargrove]

According to Wikipedia, the CIA’s MKUltra “operation began in the early 1950s” and “was officially sanctioned in 1953,” which happens to be the very year phony Marguerite hired as a housekeeper a woman named Louise Robertson to clean her little apartment in New York City.  After the assassination, Mrs. Robertson was questioned by the FBI and she gave a curious statement.
 

In her Warren Commission testimony, “Marguerite” denied that her “son” came to New York to go to a hospital.  

Mr. RANKIN. Before you leave New York, did you ever tell anybody that you took Lee Oswald to New York so he could have mental tests at the Jacobi Hospital? 
Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, never. My child was a normal child--and while in New York. I explained to you he had a dog with puppies. The school teachers talked well about him. He had a bicycle. There was nothing abnormal about Lee Oswald. 

Put yourself in the position of a CIA officer grooming a Russian-speaking kid so he could assume the identity of an American-born child and eventually travel to the Soviet Union in a false defector spy operation.  The American-born child, we’re told, had a mastoidectomy in 1946. Since your Company clearly has no compunctions against poisoning thousands of often unwitting Americans with LSD, why would you hesitate to arrange for an unnecessary mastoidectomy as soon as possible to the kid being groomed to take the American’s place?  It seems only natural to me.

And that might be the real reason “Marguerite” brought her “son” to a New York City hospital.  After all, what possible reason did Mrs. Robertson have to lie to the FBI about Marguerite's remarks?  "Marguerite's" need to lie was obvious.

John Armstrong also points out that the Marguerite Oswald impostor “told a staff member at the Youth House that she was unable to return to Texas due to financial hardship. She said that she was earning $45 per week (before taxes) and spending nearly half, $72.50 per month, for rent. Yet in the summer of 1953 the poor, despondent, "Marguerite" hired a housekeeper, Louise Robertson, to clean her apartment two or three days per week.”  Was she getting extra money from someone?

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I'm glad Jim is at last acknowledging that the mastoidectomy on the body in Oswald's grave is fatal to the 'Harvey and Lee' theory put forward in his holy book.

Excellent post Jeremy. An interesting fact is that Armstrong actually mentions the exhumation in his book. He laments the fact that a DNA test could not be performed on "Harvey" as that would have proved if he was related to Robert or not. But Armstrong doesn't bother to inform the reader that his theory is destroyed by the exhumation result. The idea that "Harvey" was given a mastoid operation while in NY is a recent invention by Jim Hargrove, perhaps with Armstrong's blessing, to try and explain away the issue. My other point is after Michael Eddowes theory was disproved he was soon back at it working on another angle. Armstrong would undoubtedly do the same thing if a DNA test ever were performed which we know would show "Harvey" was the one and only LHO.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

7 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Was she getting extra money from someone?

Nope. She wasn't rich but she got by with penny pinching and begging.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/marguerites-finances.html

As far as what marguerite told people, she lied continually-where do you think LHO got it from?

[Michael Walton]

And that might be the real reason “Marguerite” brought her “son” to a New York City hospital.  After all, what possible reason did Mrs. Robertson have to lie to the FBI about Marguerite's remarks?  "Marguerite's" need to lie was obvious.

-----------------

Nice Jim. Another really big assumption here - that MIGHT BE the reason.

-----------------

She said that she was earning $45 per week (before taxes) and spending nearly half, $72.50 per month, for rent. Yet in the summer of 1953 the poor, despondent, "Marguerite" hired a housekeeper, Louise Robertson, to clean her apartment two or three days per week.”  Was she getting extra money from someone?

------------------

Hard to say, Jim. People have done stranger things.  Like buy a $400,000 house they're not qualified to purchase, yet the bank suckers them in on the purchase.  Then they stop making payments and start squatting there, but refuse to leave when they get an eviction notice.  Many people live beyond their means all the time.