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

[Michael Walton]

Agreed.  The level of anger here is hard to take.  Have any of these naysayers actually read Harvey and Lee?  Jim it is very admirable of you to continue to support this evidence with so many posters attacking you.

Dawn

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

It's the fairy tale Dawn.  Jim or me or Sandy or anyone on here could possibly be the nicest people in the world. But it's the STORY that's being attacked. It's ridiculous to think that an Oswald clone was running around in the exact same places as Lee Oswald. Why not have the clone in California while Oswald was in NYC? Or when Oswald was in TX what are the odds of the clone being in NYC like Oswald was years months previously or afterward?

This whole case brings out the worst in people because they can't get over the fact that although there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy it had to be some all encompassing incredibly convoluted fairy tale with blobs of paint painted into all of the films, an assassination headquarters down in the basement of Ruby's nightclub, microphones painted out of photos when Oswald was killed but not in others, the body being whisked away the minute Air Force One landed at Andrews and, yes, the most goofy story of all - this one.

At least for the most part the Lone Nutters are consistent with their story line.  Did YOU even bother to read above, where Hargrove is basically taking one of the better researchers (Meagher) and spinning her Oswald double writings and using THAT to say "Yep, there's the Harvey and Lee proof?" It's outrageous that he would do that. Instead of cheering him on, do you not see how dishonest that is, to take a credible researcher's work and twisting it to fit this crazy story?

Who would you rather believe - Meagher or Hargrove?

 

[Michael Clark]

21 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Agreed.  The level of anger here is hard to take.  Have any of these naysayers actually read Harvey and Lee?  Jim it is very admirable of you to continue to support this evidence with so many posters attacking you.

Dawn

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

It's the fairy tale Dawn.  Jim or me or Sandy or anyone on here could possibly be the nicest people in the world. But it's the STORY that's being attacked. It's ridiculous to think that an Oswald clone was running around in the exact same places as Lee Oswald. Why not have the clone in California while Oswald was in NYC? Or when Oswald was in TX what are the odds of the clone being in NYC like Oswald was years months previously or afterward?

This whole case brings out the worst in people because they can't get over the fact that although there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy it had to be some all encompassing incredibly convoluted fairy tale with blobs of paint painted into all of the films, an assassination headquarters down in the basement of Ruby's nightclub, microphones painted out of photos when Oswald was killed but not in others, the body being whisked away the minute Air Force One landed at Andrews and, yes, the most goofy story of all - this one.

At least for the most part the Lone Nutters are consistent with their story line.  Did YOU even bother to read above, where Hargrove is basically taking one of the better researchers (Meagher) and spinning her Oswald double writings and using THAT to say "Yep, there's the Harvey and Lee proof?" It's outrageous that he would do that. Instead of cheering him on, do you not see how dishonest that is, to take a credible researcher's work and twisting it to fit this crazy story?

Who would you rather believe - Meagher or Hargrove?

 

Michael likes to quote people without using the quote function. They won't get a notification and won't be ably to reply, like there was a debate going on. Quoting Dawn, since Michael didn't.

7 hours ago, Dawn Meredith said:

Agreed.  The level of anger here is hard to take.  Have any of these naysayers actually read Harvey and Lee?  Jim it is very admirable of you to continue to support this evidence with so many posters attacking you.

Dawn

 

Edited August 18, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Jim Hargrove]

From Accessories After the Fact, by Sylvia Meagher, p. 361 (emphasis added):

The Commission’s failure to use its full powers of investigation is to be regretted, not only to establish that the allegations resulted from mistaken identity, if indeed they did, but, more importantly, to rule out the possibility of deliberate impersonation.  Several of the stories evoke the almost irresistible suspicion of impersonation because of the flamboyant and gratuitous care “Oswald” took to call attention to himself in a way that later appeared to incriminate the real Oswald and to implicate the alleged murder rifle.  For the Commission to pursue the evidence of impersonation was of great importance if it meant to evaluate the inferences that would flow from proof of an imposter-Oswald: that there was a plot to kill the President, planned carefully long before the event; that the conspirators were familiar with Oswald’s background and circumstances and had him selected as their fall guy; that Oswald had to be murdered to prevent him from presenting evidence of his innocence, or evidence implicating others; and that the killers of the President were still at large.

The fact that the best of the early researchers clearly believed there were two people using the identity of Lee Harvey Oswald during several months prior to the assassination is undeniable.  The Internet trolls who now pretend to be outraged after being shown clear evidence that two Oswalds existed long before the assassination, when in fact they clearly existed at the time of the assassination, are disturbingly illogical. 

Edited August 18, 2017 by Jim Hargrove

[Michael Clark]

37 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

From Accessories After the Fact, by Sylvia Meagher, p. 361 (emphasis added):

The Commission’s failure to use its full powers of investigation is to be regretted, not only to establish that the allegations resulted from mistaken identity, if indeed they did, but, more importantly, to rule out the possibility of deliberate impersonation.  Several of the stories evoke the almost irresistible suspicion of impersonation because of the flamboyant and gratuitous care “Oswald” to call attention to himself in a way that later appeared to incriminate the real Oswald and to implicate the alleged murder rifle.  For the Commission to pursue the evidence of impersonation was of great importance if it meant to evaluate the inferences that would flow from proof of an imposter-Oswald: that there was a plot to kill the President, planned carefully long before the event; that the conspirators with familiar with Oswald’s background and circumstances and had him selected as their fall guy; that Oswald had to be murdered to prevent him from presenting evidence of his innocence, or evidence implicating others; and that the killers of the President were still at large.

The fact that the best of the early researchers clearly believed there were two people using the identity of Lee Harvey Oswald during several months prior to the assassination is undeniable.  The Internet trolls who now pretend to be outraged after being shown clear evidence that two Oswalds existed long before the assassination, when in fact they clearly existed at the time of the assassination, are disturbingly illogical. 

(I added some bold-type to the above.)

That's great Jim! As always, your knowledge, research and genius always smacks-down the trolls!

[Jim Hargrove]

Thanks, Michael....

When I retyped by hand the excerpt above from Accessories After the Fact, I made two minor typographical errors: I left out the word "took" and wrote "with" instead or "were".  I've corrected them both in my original post, which probably won't show up in your quote.

Accessories After the Fact was published way back in 1967.  

To Mathias....

Thank you for your post near the end of the previous page.  I was hoping you would contribute again to this discussion.  Can you suggest an image of a Russian newspaper that would be more appropriate to Harvey Oswald's Russian language ability before the so-called defection? A half dozen or more Marines stationed in California said he read Russian literature and could speak Russian. I selected the current image because of its clarity, but I do want to be fair. Do you know of another more appropriate image?

I'll try get back to you with a couple of other questions over the weekend. Thanks again!

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

N.B. Readers who aren't particularly interested in the teaching of Russian in Hungary can skip to section 4 below.

1 - Paedagogica Historica

Again Jim complains that I have ignored "the Journal Paedagogica Historica abstract which states that compulsory Russian instruction in Hungarian schools began in 1945". Unfortunately, the abstract does not state what Jim wants it to state. This is what the abstract actually says (you can check it for yourself at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00309230.2017.1349158?journalCode=cpdh20'& ):

<blockquote>In the period between 1945 and 1989, the learning of Russian as a compulsory subject was introduced, teaching other languages was restricted, and Hungarian-Russian bilingual schools were launched.</blockquote>

The abstract states that three developments in the realm of language learning in Hungary occurred during the period of Soviet domination. It does not state, or even imply, that the three developments began right at the beginning of the Soviet period and ended right at the end of the Soviet period.

The abstract is vaguer than the article by Krisztina Lukács, and adds nothing to it.

2 - Russian Starting in Grade 5

<blockquote>There is no evidence at all that Russian language instruction in Hungarian school during the years 1945-1947 commenced only at the 5th grade level.</blockquote>

Equally, there is no evidence that Russian was taught at earlier grades immediately after the war. There is only one piece of evidence (so far) about the grades at which Russian was taught in Hungary during the post-war period. That piece of evidence, the article by Krisztina Lukács, states only that Russian was taught from grade 5 onwards. It doesn't specify the year in which this restriction began. The implication is that, once Russian began to be taught during the Soviet domination, it was taught only from grade 5 onwards. If Russian was taught at earlier grades immediately after the war, and then restricted to grade 5 and above at some later time, Lukács might have mentioned it, but she didn't.

3 - Fictional Character

Jim writes:

<blockquote>It is clear from Harvey and Lee, clear from my website, and clear from my posts immediately above that I believe Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald FIRST APPEARED in a Fort Worth suburb in the U.S. during the summer of 1947, not just six years later in New York.</blockquote>

Firstly, there was no real-life Harvey Oswald, unless Jim is referring to the real-life Lee Harvey Oswald's uncle. Secondly, Jim can believe anything he likes about when his fictional character 'Harvey' was conjured into life. But the evidence he keeps citing for the fictional character's existence, the crank phone call, refers to Oswald in New York, at which time the real, one and only, not-yet-Russian-speaking Lee Harvey Oswald was 12 years old.

4 - Oswald Was Not a Native Russian Speaker

Jim writes:

<blockquote>the existing EVIDENCE shows that Oswald learned Russian suddenly and dramatically.</blockquote>

No, it doesn't. It shows that he learned Russian gradually. I explained this in at least two of my earlier posts, and I'll be happy to do so again if necessary.

Jim writes:

<blockquote>The Warren Commission says that Oswald left Japan and reported for duty at the Marine Corps Air Facility in Santa Ana, California, in December 1958. A month later, he took the infamous Russian language test.</blockquote>

No, he didn't. He took the test two months after arriving in California. Oswald arrived in California in December 1958, and took the Russian test on 25 February 1959. That's two months, not one.

I'm sure the mistake was accidental, not deliberate. The significance of Jim's accidental mistake is interesting. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Oswald began learning Russian when he was stationed in California, and that he had only one month in which to learn enough Russian to pass the test with flying colours. Demonstrating a strong command of Russian after just one month's learning - it's preposterous! Oswald must have been a native speaker all along!

But Oswald actually had two months in which to learn Russian before taking the test. How well did Oswald do in the test after just two months' learning? Did he pass the test with flying colours, as a native speaker would have done? Sadly for the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory, he didn't do very well. Colonel Folsom of the marines explained:

<blockquote>Now, under 'understands', the scoring was minus 5, which means that he got five more wrong than right. The 'P' in parentheses indicates 'poor'. Under reading he achieved a score of 4, which is low. This, again, is shown by the 'P' in parentheses for 'poor'... and under 'writes' he achieved a score of 3, with 'P' in parentheses, and this indicates he got three more right that he did wrong. His total score was 2, with a 'P' in parentheses meaning that overall he got two more right than wrong, and his rating was poor throughout.</blockquote>

(Hearings, vol.8, p.307: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=36#relPageId=315 . For the document Folsom is referring to, see Hearings, vol.19, p.662: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136#relPageId=680 )

Jim refers to "the infamous Russian language test in which he [Oswald] got more questions right than wrong," as though this shows that Oswald did well in the test. But Oswald didn't do well in the test. He did poorly. Oswald's poor performance is precisely what we should expect from someone who had spent only two months learning a foreign language.

According to 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' doctrine, the person who did poorly in the test actually spoke Russian like a native. How can this be? Why would the Oswald who spoke Russian like a native pretend to be someone who had only just begun to learn the language? Surely the doctrine can't be wrong? Can it?

After reproducing an image of a Russian-language newspaper, Jim writes:

<blockquote>Exactly who could learn to read the above in a month's worth of spare time ...</blockquote>

Again, Oswald arrived in California in December 1958, and took the Russian test towards the end of February 1959. That's two months, not one. It's that accidental mistake again!

There's a second accidental mistake here. Jim seems to be implying that the Russian test required Oswald to be able to read the sort of complex sentences that you might find in a newspaper, and that Oswald was indeed able to read complex sentences. Does Jim have any evidence that the Russian test was pitched at that level? It doesn't really matter because, as we have seen, and as Jim must have been aware, Oswald really wasn't very good at reading Russian when he took the test ("Under reading he achieved a score of 4, which is low. This, again, is shown by the 'P' in parentheses for 'poor'").

Jim writes:

<blockquote>learning to read, write, and speak Russian well enough to read Russian newspapers in one month</blockquote>

That's the third time Jim has made the accidental "one month" mistake, and the second time he has implied misleadingly, but accidentally, that Oswald was able to read Russian newspapers competently by the time he took his test. Mathias is correct in doubting that "Oswald was able to read that kind of high-brow newspaper" by the time he took his test.

I wonder if Jim would be kind enough to:
- (a) acknowledge the uncontroversial fact that Oswald's performance in his Russian test was poor, far below that of a native speaker;
- (b) explain how Oswald's poor performance is compatible with the notion, central to the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory, that the person who took the test was indistinguishable from a native speaker of Russian.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Dawn Meredith writes:

<blockquote>Have any of these naysayers actually read Harvey and Lee?</blockquote>

I have! Not every word, of course. I can't imagine anyone has managed that.

I realise that you must be very busy, but perhaps you could spare the time to answer a couple of related questions about the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory. As far as I can recall, the questions weren't answered in the book.

The theory requires Oswald to have been indistinguishable from a native speaker of Russian; that was the whole point of the so-called 'Oswald project'. But the Oswald who did poorly in his Russian test, and who made frequent grammatical mistakes even after living in the Soviet Union for the best part of three years, clearly couldn't have been mistaken for a native speaker. How would you explain this contradiction? If he actually was a native speaker, he must have been pretending not to be. Why would he do this, since it would defeat the whole purpose of the so-called 'Oswald project'?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

I see that Jim is still trying to use Sylvia Meagher to provide some credibility for the self-contradictory 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy.

Meagher notes, correctly, that there is good evidence that Oswald was being impersonated before the assassination. You could argue about whether any particular incongruous sighting of Oswald was due to impersonation or mistaken identity, but there is no serious doubt that he was impersonated before the assassination.

The point, however, is that there are believable, rational explanations for such impersonation. There is absolutely no reason to invoke an unbelievable, irrational explanation such as the self-contradictory 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy, which is the sort of nonsense that Meagher herself would have seen through in an instant, and which brings rational criticism of the lone-nut theory into disrepute.

[Chris Newton]

2 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The point, however, is that there are believable, rational explanations for such impersonation. There is absolutely no reason to invoke an unbelievable, irrational explanation such as the self-contradictory 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy, which is the sort of nonsense that Meagher herself would have seen through in an instant, and which brings rational criticism of the lone-nut theory into disrepute.

 Jeremy,

I'm in agreement with you in this thought. I do believe that Oswald was impersonated (doubled) quite possibly by multiple persons in several different locations. But I also find it a real stretch to buy into a long term Intel project that started when he was a youth. There's no doubt though that intelligence services have utilized long term sleeper agents and this fact is the only thing that keeps me from entirely closing the book on this idea.

I do respect Mr. Armstrong's research and Jim's efforts to keep it alive.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Chris,

I agree with you about Armstrong's research. The document cache at Baylor is very valuable. It's just a shame that he decided to use his research to promote such a poorly supported and self-contradictory theory.

[Mathias Baumann]

16 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

R2:

Sufficient comprehension to read simple, authentic written material in a form

equivalent to usual printing or typescript on subjects within a familiar context. Able to

read with some misunderstandings straightforward, familiar, factual material, but in

general insufficiently experienced with the language to draw inferences directly from

the linguistic aspects of the text. Can locate and understand the main ideas and details

in material written for the general reader.

Jim,

I think the words "familiar context" is the key here. He might have been able to understand the main ideas of an article if it contained mostly familiar vocabulary.
So I guess he might have been able to understand the gist of some articles in a tabloid magazine, if he was familiar with the vocabulary.

[Mathias Baumann]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Again, Oswald arrived in California in December 1958, and took the Russian test towards the end of February 1959. That's two months, not one. It's that accidental mistake again!

 

Jeremy,

I don't think Oswald could have reached level L2/R2 in just two months without any instruction. He would have needed at least 4 - 5 lessons per day to get there.

[Jim Hargrove]

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I wonder if Jim would be kind enough to:
- (a) acknowledge the uncontroversial fact that Oswald's performance in his Russian test was poor, far below that of a native speaker;
- (b) explain how Oswald's poor performance is compatible with the notion, central to the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory, that the person who took the test was indistinguishable from a native speaker of Russian.

Once again, Mr. Bojczuk demonstrates that he does not even comprehend the basics of the material he is trying so hard to debunk. Had he bothered to read Harvey and Lee, he would understand that Harvey Oswald did not try to pass for a native-speaking Russian during his so-called defection.  Oswald tried to hide the fact that he understood Russian.  For example….

The private Intourist guide Rima Sherikova Oswald hired in Moscow indicated he did not seem to speak a word of Russian.

A Moscow doctor treating the wrist wound from his so-called suicide attempt also wrote that Oswald indicated he did not speak Russian but seemed to understand some of the things said about him in Russian. The exact words were, "The patient apparently understands the questions asked in Russian. Sometimes he answers correctly, but immediately states that he does not understand what he was asked.

 

 

While working at the radio factory in Minsk, Harvey Oswald became friends with the family of Anita (Ana) Ziger.  Ana’s father, Alejandro, spoke English and frequently translated for Oswald at the radio plant.  In 1998, John Armstrong and a friend traveled to Buenos Aires, and did several lengthy interviews with Ana Ziger.  Ana declared that, when she knew him in Minsk, Oswald didn’t speak any Russian and seemed unwilling to learn the language.

Here’s a photo of Ana Ziger and “Oswald” from the Warren volumes:

 

 

 

Of the people who knew him in Russia, only Marina claimed Oswald spoke Russian, (“with a Baltic accent.”)  Recently, a Russian named Ernst Titovets came to the United States claiming Oswald did indeed speak Russian in the Soviet Union.  He brought with him audio tapes—with Oswald speaking only in English!  Millicent Cranor wrote a great take-down on Titovets which can be read here.

Mr. Bojczuk may not understand the basics of Harvey and Lee, but he did get one thing right. Oswald, according to the Warren Commission, was stationed in California for two months, rather than one, before taking the Russian language test.  Mr. Bojczuk can now attempt to make others believe that “Lee Harvey Oswald” learned to speak, read, and write Russian without a teacher or a textbook, in two months!  Thanks for the correction! I sincerely doubt this will help you convince others of your theory Amazing Theory!

[Ray Mitcham]

For what is is worth, my sister's estranged husband left Hungary, after the revolution, when he was sixteen, in 1953, and never learned Russian.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

37 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

While working at the radio factory in Minsk, Harvey Oswald became friends with the family of Anita (Ana) Ziger.  Ana’s father, Alejandro, spoke English and frequently translated for Oswald at the radio plant.  In 1998, John Armstrong and a friend traveled to Buenos Aires, and did several lengthy interviews with Ana Ziger.  Ana declared that, when she knew him in Minsk, Oswald didn’t speak any Russian and seemed unwilling to learn the language.

Unfortunately for Armstrong, In 1995, three years before she talked to Armstrong, Ziger told an Argentinian publication that “Nobody could say anything [about lies LHO told] because he spoke Russian poorly Dad would translate ...” So according to Ziger, LHO certainly did speak Russian, albeit poorly at the time, and Alexander Ziger translated as a matter of convenience. See my article for a discussion of Armstrong's nonsensical claim that LHO never spoke Russian in Russia.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/lho-spoke-no-russian-in-russia.html