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

[W. Tracy Parnell]

For the final time, an explanation has already been offered by Greg Parker. You guys just don't accept it as you would have to abandon your beloved theory.

[David Josephs]

"Offered" and "correct" have no relationship at all within Parker's explanation...

Paraphrase Tracy... fit 200 school days into 210 total days as I posted...

You can add and count, right?

Edited August 30, 2017 by David Josephs

[David Josephs]

There are 210 total school days available in that time period...

Youth House takes up more than 10 days and comes after 3/23/53...

So we're already less than 200 without removing SUMMER...

Maybe you need to go reread Parker's 'splanation

[Jim Hargrove]

Ya gotta at least give Mr. Parnell points for chutzpa.  Again and again for YEARS, he declares Harvey and Lee dead and buried, and yet he cannot explain even the simple contradictions explored in this very thread, for example:

The Bolton Ford incident, Oswald’s pre- and post “defection” Russian language skills, Oswald’s remarkable simultaneous appearances in NYC and New Orleans schools simultaneously, his uncanny ability to receive penicillin injections in Japan and sail the high seas to Taiwan simultaneously, and so on.

Mr. Parnell often says he can’t explain every little thing, or something like that, and then he says Greg Parker has all the answers.  In other words, look over there, but not here, not on the JFK Assassination Debate forum.  It is a tactic all the H&L critics who can’t answer the issues have adopted.  Funny how they all act in concert.

[Jim Hargrove]

On 8/29/2017 at 7:22 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

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.

Quite obviously, Mr. Bojczuk has decided not to respond to this post.  If he does respond, it  will consist primarily of just complaints about how horrible I am followed by a link to some incomplete nonsense by Greg Parker.  Mr. Bojczuk will put nothing substantial about the Bolton Ford Incident up on this website.  I wonder why?

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

For the final time, an explanation has already been offered by Greg Parker. You guys just don't accept it as you would have to abandon your beloved theory.

 

Tracy,

$1000 says you don't understand Greg Parker's explanation. If you do, show us how it debunks the "Oswald attended two schools simultaneously" evidence that is easily understood by most everybody.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Tracy,

$1000 says you don't understand Greg Parker's explanation. If you do, show us how it debunks the "Oswald attended two schools simultaneously" evidence that is easily understood by most everybody.

 

I am not saying it "debunks" it. I am saying he has provided an alternate explanation. BTW, it must be nice to have so much money!

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Parnell often says he can’t explain every little thing, or something like that, and then he says Greg Parker has all the answers.  In other words, look over there, but not here, not on the JFK Assassination Debate forum.  It is a tactic all the H&L critics who can’t answer the issues have adopted.  Funny how they all act in concert.

Nobody can explain everything and I am no different. However, professional investigators (FBI, police etc.) know that in any case there will be evidence that does not fit the final conclusion. And the JFK case probably has more accumulated evidence than any case in history. So naturally there will be things that seem unexplainable. But this does not require the Armstrong invention of  two Lee Harvey Oswalds.

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I am not saying it "debunks" it. I am saying he has provided an alternate explanation. BTW, it must be nice to have so much money!

Okay, show us that. So we can tear it to pieces.

 

[James Norwood]

7 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

For the final time, an explanation has already been offered by Greg Parker. You guys just don't accept it as you would have to abandon your beloved theory.

 

Tracy,

The subject of the two Oswalds is not "theory," and you will not be putting the matter to rest with your repeated references to Greg Parker.

With both documentary and eyewitness evidence, it is apparent that two individuals had appropriated the identity of Lee Harvey Oswald starting in the late 1940s.  Eventually, historians who study this topic dispassionately will correct the record with the truth about the two Oswalds.  

For the present, those with an open mind (and willing to take the time) will discern the incontrovertible evidence of two Oswalds.  A good place to start is with the detailed essays on Jim Hargrove's "Harvey and Lee" website.  On that site, primary evidence is presented in abundance--not speculation and theory.

It is painfully apparent from your posts that you are working exclusively with secondary materials, such as links to Greg Parker's materials.  By contrast, David Josephs and Jim Hargrove are presenting primary sources in their posts. 

The thoughtful reader of this thread will instantly recognize the substantial, content-intensive posts, due to the conscientious work with primary evidence from David and Jim above.

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by James Norwood

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

<blockquote>However the preponderance of evidence is in opposition to the mastoidectomy outlier. So I'm inclined to believe there is something missing or wrong with the mastoidectomy evidence. It seems to me there are only two possibilities to explain it. Either efforts were made to keep identifiable medical marks, such as the mastoidectomy and dental work, identical between the two Oswalds, or a fake mastoidectomy scar was added to the exhumation report and the witnesses were convinced to go along with it, probably with some bullxxxx "national security" story fed to them.</blockquote>

The "preponderance of evidence is in opposition to the mastoidectomy outlier"! The "outlier" is a solid piece of physical evidence, reported by reputable scientists in a reputable academic journal, which shows the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory to be internally contradictory and therefore false.

Sandy is correct to imply that the only way to get around this evidence and to maintain a belief in the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory is to claim that either:

- (a) a hypothetical Oswald clone was given a mastoidectomy scar at the age of six, just on the off-chance that the clone's body would be dug up and examined several decades later; or

- (b) that the solid piece of physical evidence, reported by reputable scientists in a reputable academic journal, has been faked.

Unfortunately, there is not the slightest piece of evidence for the existence of a six-year-old Oswald clone, or for the existence of the surgeon who must have operated on the clone, or for the existence of the hospital in which the operation must have taken place, or for the faking of a mastoidectomy scar in the scientists' report, or for the notion that the scientists were coerced into allowing their report to be faked and then keeping quiet about the faking of their report. It is a complete fantasy. But that is what happens when an irrational belief is contradicted by solid evidence and the believer does not have the mental strength to acknowledge the irrationality of the belief.

To anyone looking at the matter objectively, the mastoidectomy evidence alone shows the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory to be nonsense. There is, however, a more important point here. Imagine what would happen if a rational person who doesn't know much about the JFK assassination, but who is keen to find out if it's a subject worth taking seriously, reads this thread and in particular Sandy's comment. What would they think? Irrational nonsense such as the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory is actively dangerous. It is liable to contaminate serious criticism of the lone-nut theory, and ought to be opposed.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

James Norwood writes:

<blockquote>In my post that prompted your intemperate response, I was only asking for you to defend your position about the Warren Report providing "basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination." The main thesis of the Warren Report is that Oswald shot the president and acted alone in doing so. Given the paramount importance of that conclusion, what are the "basic, uncontested facts" about Oswald presented in the Warren Report? Or are there none?</blockquote>

In what you consider to have been my "intemperate response", I merely pointed out that you had failed to comprehend what I had written. I apologise if I offended your delicate sensibilities, but my point stands. If you still don't understand the point I was making, please read my post again.

In that post, I pointed out that you were accusing me of having a "belief in the Warren Report" and a "bias in favor in the findings of the Warren Report". What evidence do you have for that accusation? The fact that I argued against the preposterous 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

<blockquote>Quite obviously, Mr. Bojczuk has decided not to respond to this post. If he does respond, it  will consist primarily of just complaints about how horrible I am followed by a link to some incomplete nonsense by Greg Parker. Mr. Bojczuk will put nothing substantial about the Bolton Ford Incident up on this website. I wonder why?</blockquote>

Quite obviously, Mr Bojczuk had not responded to Mr Hargrove's post within a few hours for three reasons: (a) he lives in a very different time zone to Mr Hargrove; (b) he has plenty of other interests and obligations to occupy his time; and (c) he very rarely spends more than a few minutes a day reading posts on this forum.

I'm sure Jim isn't a horrible person. I have no doubt that he is kind to animals and children and that he frequently helps little old ladies to cross the street. But his devotion to the poorly supported and internally contradictory 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory is very much like that of a religious fundamentalist to his or her holy book.

In his post, Jim makes a couple of points worth replying to. The first is:

<blockquote>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?</blockquote>

Firstly, a small pedantic objection. It doesn't beg the question; it raises the question. Begging the question is the logical error of assuming that which you are trying to prove. It's a useful phrase which ought to be employed correctly. Pedantry over.

Deslatte obviously remembered the incident because the name 'Oswald' was all over the news. The fact that Deslatte specifically denied that the person he dealt with gave the first name 'Lee', and the fact that he could not recall the man's appearance sufficiently to be able to provide a description, suggest that he was not certain that the man he dealt with was the historical, one and only, uncloned Lee Harvey Oswald who underwent a mastoidectomy at the age of six and whose body was exhumed several decades later in a scientific procedure which proved the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory to be internally contradictory and therefore false.

The second point Jim makes is:

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

We are to believe the FBI report. There are two reasons to believe that Sewell's account is less reliable than Deslatte's. Firstly, Sewell's account was given several years later than Deslatte's. Secondly, one claim that Sewell made is demonstrably wrong: that Deslatte wrote the full name 'Lee Oswald' on the paperwork. The paperwork contains only the name 'Oswald'.

I agree with Jim that some of the documentary evidence appears to have been altered by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. But that doesn't mean that you can just assume that any inconvenient piece of documentary evidence has been altered. Is Jim seriously suggesting that the FBI report of its interview with Oscar Deslatte is a forgery?

Because Jim likes it so much, here's that link again:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1408-the-bolton-ford-incident

[W. Tracy Parnell]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Okay, show us that. So we can tear it to pieces.

You have been provided the links to Parker's website many times. You can follow the links, you do not need to be "shown."

[W. Tracy Parnell]

6 hours ago, James Norwood said:

The subject of the two Oswalds is not "theory," 

Fine, when will you be taking this "fact" to the proper authorities or at least to an investigative journalist so the world can become aware of this "fact?" If you are not willing to do that, what is the point of it all? Of course, you can't do that because you know you will be laughed at.