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

[Sandy Larsen]

58 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

It's not character assassination to point out that someone accepts dubious reports. I am aware that you are a knowledgeable researcher and a fine person I am sure. But did you ever try this. Take all (and I mean all) of the reports of LHO being somewhere he couldn't be. Then chart them out and see what you have. You would certainly find reports that did not fit the lone assassin theory OR the H&L theory. You would then be left with the conclusion that some people make false reports for whatever reason. What reports do you then choose to believe? Answer-the ones that you feel support H&L.

I think Jim H. does a fine job separating the chaff from the wheat. The only reason people here accuse Jim (and Jon Armstrong, and myself, etc.) of accepting everything at face value is because they just cannot believe that the CIA would have a program as involved as the Oswald Project. Damn all the evidence for it, they simply won't believe it.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

12 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Of course, all of the "information" Spencer provided to the FBI was in the media by the time he made his claims to the FBI. And he could have written "Lee Oswald" on an old card anytime after the assassination. Spencer was unemployed at the time and hoped to write an article and get it published on his "experience" with LHO. Spencer also told the FBI that he didn't think his information "would be of any significance" to the government. But Jim is happy to accept this report. In fact, he has to accept every dubious report out there to "prove" the H&L theory.

“Lee Harvey Oswald” was widely portrayed by the media as a Communist or at least a Commie sympathizer within hours of his capture.  It is remarkable, therefore, that all the witnesses I discussed above who said they interacted with him in New Orleans or Florida in 1959-1962 said he was involved in anti-Castro activities.  Every one of them!

How does Mr. Parnell explain this remarkable coincidence?  Does he think that Deslatte, Sewell, Ashworth, Spencer, Davis, Lorenz and others all met and conspired to paint Oswald as an anti-Communist because they thought the media unfairly condemned Commies?  Really?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

38 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

How does Mr. Parnell explain this remarkable coincidence?  Does he think that Deslatte, Sewell, Ashworth, Spencer, Davis, Lorenz and others all met and conspired to paint Oswald as an anti-Communist because they thought the media unfairly condemned Commies?  Really?

Simple-you have the statements of a few people against the overwhelming historical evidence of who LHO really was. The few may safely be ignored, especially when a motive for providing false information is evident as in the case of Spencer.

[Jim Hargrove]

What you call “overwhelming historical evidence” was actually almost entirely a product of J. Edgar Hoover’s massive FBI.  Hoover’s job was to cover up the assassination, not solve it. That’s why he compartmentalized the entire “investigation,” forbidding agents from following up their own leads on their own initiative, instructing them not to share information, setting up a formal process for altering sworn statements by FBI agents, and making certain that as much information as possible from other Federal agencies passed through his Bureau before going to the Warren Commission.  This is not rocket science.

A true investigation of this case involves looking at the elements of the original investigation that Hoover neglected to suppress or alter.  The Garrison investigation also helped a lot, as in the Bolton Ford incident, even though it was up against a massive counter-effort.  If you refuse to debate the specifics of the detailed information John put together on a second “Lee Harvey Oswald” active in anti-Castro paramilitary operations in the U.S. while the Russian-speaking Oswald was in the USSR, all you can do is utter dismissive, generalized nonsense like the above.

William Sullivan, third in command at the FBI after Hoover and Tolson, said, “if there were documents that possibly Hoover didn't want to come to the light of the public, then those documents no longer exist, and the truth will never be known.”
 

[Mathias Baumann]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Simple-you have the statements of a few people against the overwhelming historical evidence of who LHO really was. The few may safely be ignored, especially when a motive for providing false information is evident as in the case of Spencer.

 

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

What you call “overwhelming historical evidence” was actually almost entirely a product of J. Edgar Hoover’s massive FBI.  Hoover’s job was to cover up the assassination, not solve it. That’s why he compartmentalized the entire “investigation,” forbidding agents from following up their own leads on their own initiative, instructing them not to share information, setting up a formal process for altering sworn statements by FBI agents, and making certain that as much information as possible from other Federal agencies passed through his Bureau before going to the Warren Commission.  This is not rocket science.

A true investigation of this case involves looking at the elements of the original investigation that Hoover neglected to suppress or alter.  The Garrison investigation also helped a lot, as in the Bolton Ford incident, even though it was up against a massive counter-effort.  If you refuse to debate the specifics of the detailed information John put together on a second “Lee Harvey Oswald” active in anti-Castro paramilitary operations in the U.S. while the Russian-speaking Oswald was in the USSR, all you can do is utter dismissive, generalized nonsense like the above.

William Sullivan, third in command at the FBI after Hoover and Tolson, said, “if there were documents that possibly Hoover didn't want to come to the light of the public, then those documents no longer exist, and the truth will never be known.”
 

Jim,

I think Tracy has a point here. In my opinion there's no question  that Oswald was a genuine leftist. People who knew him closely like Titovets and deMohrenschild paint a pretty coherent picture here. Oswald even invented his own political system, "The Athenian System". Why would he do that if his leftist leanings were just make-believe?

 I think he was clearly very much interested in matters of justice and equality. For instance I remember reading he would always sit with black people on the bus. I also find it curious that he never refered to himself as a Communist, but always as a "Marxist". That shows he obviously wanted to distance himself from mainstream Communism.

So if Oswald was really only playing the left-wing radical, he did a pretty convincing and very nuanced performance.

[Jim Hargrove]

Hi, Mathias,

The Russian-speaking Oswald who “defected” to the Soviet Union MAY have been a leftist… at least until he saw the Soviet system up close and personal.  You’re right that there is a LOT of evidence for that.  But he probably also was what he appears to have been, a U.S. spy trying to set up leftist credentials.  Remember, he was clearly taking steps to “re-defect” in 1963, and had already been given permission to travel to Cuba and the USSR by the State Department.  That, I suspect, may be why he allowed himself to be sheep-dipped in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.

In any event, I’m talking about the other Oswald, the one who was active in the U.S. from 1959 to 1961 when Classic Oswald® was in the USSR.  This Oswald appeared, again and again, in roles supporting the anti-Castro Cubans.

In addition to the Bolton Ford incident (buying trucks on behalf of the “Friends of Democratic Cuba”),  he roomed with Valentine Ashworth, a “Cuban Raider Command” pilot at a time when both young men were attempting to join a Cuban exile group. He had two meetings with Dumas Milne Chevy salesman James Spencer during which, again, he talked again about Cuba.  (Spencer was the father of five children who Mr. Parnell wants us to believe risked years in the penitentiary and an enormous fine by lying to the FBI and creating false physical evidence so he could write a fraudulent magazine article for a few dollars.) 

This was the Oswald who, between 1959 and 1961, was seen and interacted with numerous people involved with anti-Castro guerrillas and training camps in Florida, most notably Marita Lorenz.  This Oswald, even if you believe he was really just a series of impersonators, clearly did NOT appear to be a leftist.

[Sandy Larsen]

19 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

“Lee Harvey Oswald” was widely portrayed by the media as a Communist or at least a Commie sympathizer within hours of his capture.  It is remarkable, therefore, that all the witnesses I discussed above who said they interacted with him in New Orleans or Florida in 1959-1962 said he was involved in anti-Castro activities.  Every one of them!

How does Mr. Parnell explain this remarkable coincidence?  Does he think that Deslatte, Sewell, Ashworth, Spencer, Davis, Lorenz and others all met and conspired to paint Oswald as an anti-Communist because they thought the media unfairly condemned Commies?  Really?

Good point, Jim.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

19 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

19 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

How does Mr. Parnell explain this remarkable coincidence?  Does he think that Deslatte, Sewell, Ashworth, Spencer, Davis, Lorenz and others all met and conspired to paint Oswald as an anti-Communist because they thought the media unfairly condemned Commies?  Really?

Simple-you have the statements of a few people against the overwhelming historical evidence of who LHO really was. The few may safely be ignored, especially when a motive for providing false information is evident as in the case of Spencer.

 

Tracy,

You completely missed Jim's point.

You earlier said that the folks who claimed to have seen Oswald when Oswald was in Russia must have simply gotten information for their stories from the press. In reply, Jim pointed out that, if that were the case, their stories would have included the "Oswald is a commie" angle. But their stories didn't. Their stories made Oswald look like an anti-communist -- precisely the opposite of how the press portray Oswald.

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

<blockquote>So let’s see about Bolton Ford that you claim Mr. Parker has "debunked."</blockquote>

He then repeats the misleading version which appears in his holy book, fails to even mention any of the objections I raised, and concludes with:

<blockquote>But please explain, HERE and in detail, how Greg Parker has "debunked" the Bolton Ford incident.</blockquote>

It's like trying to argue with a religious fundamentalist. Anyone who has tried to point out problems with a fundamentalist's beliefs will be familiar with the reaction: you get a blank look, and then the fundamentalist either recites a passage of scripture or repeats the nonsense you've just refuted. The fundamentalist simply cannot comprehend the notion that he or she might be mistaken.

I explained ("HERE and in detail") how Jim's preferred version does not accurately reflect the evidence. Perhaps Jim should open his mind, if he can, and actually read the criticisms, here and elsewhere, of his irrational beliefs. For Jim's benefit, here is a short summary:

The earliest account of the Bolton Ford incident, by Oscar Deslatte, mentions someone called 'Oswald', and specifically denies that a first name was given. Jim, following scripture, ignores this and prefers the account from several years later, in which Fred Sewell, who did not deal directly with the man named Oswald, recalled that the man gave the first name 'Lee' and that Deslatte wrote the full name, 'Lee Oswald', on the paperwork.

But the paperwork only contains the name 'Oswald'. Unless the FBI tampered with its report of Deslatte's interview and with the Bolton Ford paperwork (I'm afraid I may be putting ideas in Jim's head here), Sewell's recollection was faulty. Sewell was wrong to claim that the man gave the name 'Lee Oswald'. Jim cites Sewell's unreliable evidence, which incorrectly ties 'Lee Oswald' with the incident, and simply ignores the evidence which shows Sewell to have been an unreliable witness.

The Bolton Ford incident is not strong evidence of impersonation. Even if it were, common-sense explanations are available for any such impersonation. If a common-sense explanation exists, it is irrational to prefer a far-fetched explanation, such as the notion that the impersonator was one of two unrelated men who, along with their mothers, each of whom happened to be named Marguerite, were inducted as 12-year-old boys into a mysterious 'Oswald project' more than a decade before the assassination in the hope that when the unrelated boys grew up they would turn out to look either identical or merely similar, depending on the needs of the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory at any particular moment. As far as that theory is concerned, the Bolton Ford dealership incident has been debunked.

What I find interesting is Jim's behaviour, and how he seems to be immune to any criticism of his beliefs:

1 - On 4 April this year, he raised the Bolton Ford incident when another of his pieces of 'evidence' was having a hard time. Look at his post on page 11 of this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?page=11 .

2 - The following day, Greg Parker posted his demolition of Jim's argument, on his own forum: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1408-the-bolton-ford-incident .

3 - Tracy Parnell posted a link to Greg's piece on page 12 of this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?page=12 .

4 - Skip forward to a few days ago. Jim's 'Oswald was in two schools at the same time' belief was coming under heavy fire. He changed the subject, by bringing up the Bolton Ford incident again. He repeated his post from 4 April, virtually word for word. He did not mention, let alone deal with, any of the points raised by Greg Parker. See page 54 of this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?page=54 .

5 - I then pointed out the problems with Jim's interpretation of the Bolton Ford incident: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?page=57 .

6 - The same day, Jim repeated his old account of the Bolton Ford incident, again completely ignoring the evidence which contradicted his account. See the passages I quoted at the beginning of this post.

What are the chances that at some point in the future, when yet another aspect of the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy gets debunked, Jim will try to deflect attention by repeating his faulty account of the Bolton Ford incident, again failing to mention any of the reasons why his account should not be trusted?

P.S. Apologies to any religious fundamentalists who object to their crazy beliefs being associated with something as surreal, evidence-free and poorly argued as the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory.

[Jim Hargrove]

In his latest screed, Mr. Bojczuk spends far more time explaining how horrible and biased I am than he does discussing the actual evidence.  After declaring, again and again, how Greg Parker has explained all this, he finally does get to a small part of the evidence, however briefly.

Here is Mr. Bojczuk’s entire stab at debunking the significance of the Bolton Ford incident: 

The earliest account of the Bolton Ford incident, by Oscar Deslatte, mentions someone called 'Oswald', and specifically denies that a first name was given. Jim, following scripture, ignores this and prefers the account from several years later, in which Fred Sewell, who did not deal directly with the man named Oswald, recalled that the man gave the first name 'Lee' and that Deslatte wrote the full name, 'Lee Oswald', on the paperwork.

But the paperwork only contains the name 'Oswald'. Unless the FBI tampered with its report of Deslatte's interview and with the Bolton Ford paperwork (I'm afraid I may be putting ideas in Jim's head here), Sewell's recollection was faulty. Sewell was wrong to claim that the man gave the name 'Lee Oswald'. Jim cites Sewell's unreliable evidence, which incorrectly ties 'Lee Oswald' with the incident, and simply ignores the evidence which shows Sewell to have been an unreliable witness.

By “earliest account of the Bolton Ford incident,” Mr. Bojczuk is referring to the FBI report of 11/25/63 buried in a lengthy Warren Commission document.  By suggesting that the report says Deslatte and the bid mentions only “Oswald” and not “Lee Oswald,” Mr. Bojczuk wants us to believe it could be referring to any old Oswald, say Francis Oswald, or Ezekial Oswald, or...   you get the picture.  Mr. Bojczuk wants us to believe that just about anyone other than “Lee Oswald” was being referred to.

Of course, this begs the question:  If Mr. Deslatte didn’t think it was “Lee Oswald,” why did he remember the incident two years later and why did he contact the FBI? 

Mr. Bojczuk fails to mention that the “Friends of Democratic Cuba” is listed on the Bolton form along with the name “Oswald.”  Mr. Bojczuk fails to acknowledge that among the officers of “Friends of Democratic Cuba” were none other than W. Guy Banister, who famously interacted with Lee HARVEY Oswald in New Orleans in 1963, and Gerard Tugague, Oswald’s EMPLOYER in 1956.  What a coincidence!

Mr. Bojczuk also fails to mention that, by Dec. 19, 1963, the SAC in New Orleans was already confirming directly to J. Edgar Hoover himself that a man named Charles Pearson, who was office manager at Graham Paper Company, had stated that his friend Oscar W. Deslatte, assistant manager of truck sales at Bolton Ford, had been contacted by Oswald about buying trucks.  Worse yet, the whole process of investigating the incident was prompted by a phone call from none other than Carlos Bringieur, the man who pretended to fight and then debate on the radio with “Lee HARVEY Oswald in August 1963 in New Orleans

 

The FBI report that Mr. Bojczuk is so enamored with specifically states that “DESLATTE was exhibited a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD.”  And yet, Deslatte’s boss, Fred Sewell, specifically denied that claim to Jim Garrison.  He said, “No.  They didn’t show us no pictures.”  And he said it several times.

 

 

So who are we to believe, the FBI report on Deslatte or the Garrison transcript of Fred Sewell’s interview.  Well, let’s see how reliable the FBI was in this case….

Here’s a brief three-minute YouTube movie proving how the FBI altered statements by crucial Dealey Plaza witnesses so that it could pin the blame solely on Lee Harvey Oswald.

 

 

 

Here’s an example of how the FBI had a procedure in place to materially alter the testimony of its own agents, even over the objections of Warren Commission attorneys:

 

 

And here’s my favorite:

In the wee hours of the night of Nov 22-23, 1963, the FBI secretly took “Oswald's Possessions” from the Dallas Police Department, transported them to Washington, D.C. altered them, and then secretly returned them to Dallas, only to publicly send them to Washington. D.C. a few days later. Among a great many other alterations, a Minox “spy camera” became a Minox “light meter.” FBI agent James Cadigan inadvertently spilled the bean about the secret transfer during his sworn WC testimony, which was altered by the WC.
 

 

Mr. Bojczuk wrote:

Unless the FBI tampered with its report of Deslatte's interview and with the Bolton Ford paperwork (I'm afraid I may be putting ideas in Jim's head here)....

It is obvious to any fair observer of this case that the FBI tampered with evidence in a major way.

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I explained ("HERE and in detail") how Jim's preferred version does not accurately reflect the evidence.

Actually, Jim does give evidence supporting his argument, and Jeremy doesn't.

 

Quote

Perhaps Jim should open his mind, if he can, and actually read the criticisms, here and elsewhere, of his irrational beliefs.

Actually, it is Jeremy who is closed minded. The fact that he's a lone nutter alone proves that.

Jim did read what Jeremy wrote, and he responded with evidence and sound reasoning.

 

Quote

For Jim's benefit, here is a short summary:

The earliest account of the Bolton Ford incident, by Oscar Deslatte, mentions someone called 'Oswald', and specifically denies that a first name was given. Jim, following scripture, ignores this and prefers the account from several years later, in which Fred Sewell, who did not deal directly with the man named Oswald, recalled that the man gave the first name 'Lee' and that Deslatte wrote the full name, 'Lee Oswald', on the paperwork.

But the paperwork only contains the name 'Oswald'. Unless the FBI tampered with its report of Deslatte's interview and with the Bolton Ford paperwork (I'm afraid I may be putting ideas in Jim's head here), Sewell's recollection was faulty. Sewell was wrong to claim that the man gave the name 'Lee Oswald'. Jim cites Sewell's unreliable evidence, which incorrectly ties 'Lee Oswald' with the incident, and simply ignores the evidence which shows Sewell to have been an unreliable witness.

The Bolton Ford incident is not strong evidence of impersonation. Even if it were, common-sense explanations are available for any such impersonation. If a common-sense explanation exists, it is irrational to prefer a far-fetched explanation, such as the notion that the impersonator was one of two unrelated men who, along with their mothers, each of whom happened to be named Marguerite, were inducted as 12-year-old boys into a mysterious 'Oswald project' more than a decade before the assassination in the hope that when the unrelated boys grew up they would turn out to look either identical or merely similar, depending on the needs of the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory at any particular moment.

Jim responded to the above, with supporting evidence and sound reasoning.

 

Quote

As far as that theory is concerned, the Bolton Ford dealership incident has been debunked.

No it hasn't.
 

Quote

What I find interesting is Jim's behaviour, and how he seems to be immune to any criticism of his beliefs:

1 - On 4 April this year, he raised the Bolton Ford incident when another of his pieces of 'evidence' was having a hard time. Look at his post on page 11 of this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?page=11 .

2 - The following day, Greg Parker posted his demolition of Jim's argument, on his own forum: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1408-the-bolton-ford-incident .

3 - Tracy Parnell posted a link to Greg's piece on page 12 of this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?page=12 .

4 - Skip forward to a few days ago. Jim's 'Oswald was in two schools at the same time' belief was coming under heavy fire. He changed the subject, by bringing up the Bolton Ford incident again.

Heavy fire? What heavy fire?

If you know of any convincing arguments against the "Oswald was in two schools simultaneously" evidence, then produce it. We've been begging you to produce it but you won't. Which shows that you are all talk.

I'll pay you $1000 to debunk the "Oswald was in two schools simultaneously" evidence. Here in this thread. Or in a thread dedicated to your debunking.

(The funny thing about this is that you have to debunk the evidence itself, not the theory. Because the evidence IS the theory. LOL. It would be like me offering to pay you $1000 to debunk a "sun is rising" theory where the evidence is a video of the sun rising. LOL.)

 

Edited August 29, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Michael Walton]

I already debunked the schools thing but as Jeremy has said it's  like religious fundamentalists - Jim is the gospel writer and Sandy is the accolyte.

You can't  argue reason with these people just like you  can't  argue with people who think a white blue eyed blonde haired hippy walked on water a thousand years ago LOL.

Now maybe just maybe if you  said that white guy carried around  a pistol (Larsen said it was a black object  but I  digress) then the accolyte would  finally come around.

But don't  pray on it LOL

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Actually, it is Jeremy who is closed minded. The fact that he's a lone nutter alone proves that.

Jeremy is not a "lone nutter." See his website:

http://22november1963.org.uk/

[Michael Walton]

17 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Jeremy is not a "lone nutter." See his website:

Touche Tracy. This really goes to  show how close minded Larsen.

I'm  not a lone nutter neither but of course THAT wouldn't  mean a thing to "only the facts please" Larsen either.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

Touche Tracy. This really goes to  show how close minded Larsen.

I'm  not a lone nutter neither but of course THAT wouldn't  mean a thing to "only the facts please" Larsen either.

In fact, most of the vocal critics of the theory are CT people such as yourself, Jeremy,  Parker and Lifton.

Edited August 29, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell