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

[Jim Hargrove]

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But Jim, don't you know that that sort of thing happens all the time in the real world? Just like whole semesters of classes, along with scores and absences, are accidentally added to people's school records. It happens all the time. People all around us learn a new language, on their own, in a couple months time, due to their genius intellect. And so forth and so on. These are all every-day occurrences, according to Tracy and others.

Yeah, but they just say "Norton Report" and "HSCA" and try to make it all go away.  I guess it works for them... but not for me.
 

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Though it does make one pause that ALL these things happened to just one guy... the guy who supposedly shot the president of the United States. Speaking of which, the assassination was yet another every-day real world occurrence for this guy. As was his trip to Mexico City that resulted in fake photos and fake audio transcripts being sent to CIA headquarters. This stuff happens all the time.

ABSOLUTELY!  I find fake photos of me going to places I've never been before all the time. And the phony audio recordings… they don’t even sound like me... but the CIA says it is me... so who am I to argue, right?

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Of course, if something happened that can't be explained as being an every-day occurrence, it can always be brushed off as being a lie that John Armstrong magically instilled in the minds of unsuspecting witnesses. You now how good John is at controlling people's minds.

Yeah, he must be a real Svengali out to make the Big Bucks just waiting for Kennedy conspiracy writers.  You know... he wasn't making much in the oil business and as a custom home builder so.... Oh, wait, one of my favorite dopplegangers is stopping by to take me to lunch.  Doesn't everyone have a doppleganger or two who looks just like him?  Gotta run….
 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

The Norton Report/Exhumation completely refutes the H&L theory as presented by Armstrong. "Lee" had the mastoid operation but "Harvey" who was in the grave had it. Handwriting and photo evidence-same thing. And I am not ignoring evidence, just recognizing that the "best evidence" is the scientific evidence and common sense evidence not outliers that rely mostly on witness statements. 

So, I have a couple of ideas. Why don't you present a grand theory of how the exhumation was faked. And why don't you contact some forensic pathologists and see if they think anything is wrong with the Norton Report. And while you're at it, tell them your H&L theory. Good luck.

[Jim Hargrove]

I’m not necessarily saying that the exhumation was faked, though I don’t rule it out. But there are other possibilities. I have explained to you any number of times that any organization that would deliberately poison hundreds and probably thousands of unsuspecting Americans with LSD just to see what might happen wouldn’t think twice about giving a young boy an unnecessary mastoidectomy simply to make his medical records match those of the boy he was being prepared to impersonate.  Why wouldn’t they?   Who could stop them? Review public documents about the MK ULTRA project for an overview of the morality of our CIA, at least back in the 1950s and early ‘60s.  

And why was Marina compelled to sign all those documents back in 1964 about her late husband’s grave, at least according to Vincent Di Maio, who you just called “one of the most respected experts in his field?” Now he is suddenly a careless rumor monger?  Marina apparently believed the casket might be empty, and so she obviously suspected something was up.

You, on the other hand, are well practiced at seeing nothing suspicious in anything that is even remotely connected to this entire matter.  You obviously feel that yelling “HSCA” and “Norton Report” and “science” with every post gives you carte blanche to ignore all the rest of the evidence in this case, but that only motivates me to post even more evidence for your Johnny-one-note protestations.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I’m not necessarily saying that the exhumation was faked, though I don’t rule it out. But there are other possibilities. I have explained to you any number of times that any organization that would deliberately poison hundreds and probably thousands of unsuspecting Americans with LSD just to see what might happen wouldn’t think twice about giving a young boy an unnecessary mastoidectomy simply to make his medical records match those of the boy he was being prepared to impersonate.  Why wouldn’t they?   Who could stop them? Review public documents about the MK ULTRA project for an overview of the morality of our CIA, at least back in the 1950s and early ‘60s.  

And why was Marina compelled to sign all those documents back in 1964 about her late husband’s grave, at least according to Vincent Di Maio, who you just called “one of the most respected experts in his field?” Now he is suddenly a careless rumor monger?  Marina apparently believed the casket might be empty, and so she obviously suspected something was up.

You, on the other hand, are well practiced at seeing nothing suspicious in anything that is even remotely connected to this entire matter.  You obviously feel that yelling “HSCA” and “Norton Report” and “science” with every post gives you carte blanche to ignore all the rest of the evidence in this case, but that only motivates me to post even more evidence for your Johnny-one-note protestations.

I understand the CIA did some bad things and I wouldn't put it past certain individuals to do just about anything. But how did they know they would need to give both boys mastoid operations because one might be exhumed? It is one have to have suspicions, but you have to show some proof. As far as Marina and the documents, I would have to see some documentation to comment further. I remember one incident where there was something about they wanted to do an exhumation around 1964 or something like that. And somebody tried to get her to sign something at that time, but I can't recall the details. But I would say that anyone (media, law enforcement etc.) that you could take this to would tell you the same thing I am. You need to have some proof and the "best evidence" is against you. But if you want to believe it's a large plot, I can't stop you.

EDIT: Here is the document about the proposed 1964 exhumation:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=97836&search=exhumation#relPageId=2&tab=page

There was another incident though about papers where someone tried to get Marina to sign something and I can't remember what it was. Maybe that was what DiMaio was referring to. My memory isn't what it used to be.

Edited October 6, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Sandy Larsen]

13 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I am aware that John Armstrong doesn't get rich from his book sales. But he also doesn't get any attention for his research without a "vehicle" for that research. And that is where H&L comes in. Note that he doesn't have to spend one minute defending his theories, he has you guys to do that for him. Pretty good setup if you ask me.

It appears to me that Armstrong gets more scorn than praise for his Harvey & Lee theory.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

14 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

DENTAL RECORDS AND
THE NORTON REPORT

As I read the report for the first time in years, the obvious take-away is that the dental records of the exhumed “Lee Harvey Oswald” would have been identical to those in USMC records except for the fact that they weren’t,  which in part was due to “charting errors” and other anomalies introduced by dumb-ass Marine dentists.  The Norton report says as follows:

The second question was whether or not all inconsistencies in the dental records could be ex-
plained and the records documented as being authentic. Charting errors are common, espe-
cially in a dental health record that has entries by many different practitioners as in the mili-
tary.

In TABLE 3 of the report, which examines each tooth from antemortem and postmortem examinations using the Universal Tooth Numbering System, exactly TWO teeth are described as “identical.”  All the others are either “consistent” or “probably consistent.” And to see exactly what “consistent” sometimes means, we only have to go as far as Tooth #1.

Tooth #1, the maxillary right third molar, is described as missing by three different antemortem sources and “partially erupted” in the postmortem exam. This would be consistent with a “wisdom tooth,” except for the fact that the antemortem exam included radiographs (probably X-rays) which should have shown a pre-emergent tooth.

Tooth #2, the maxillary right second molar, is completely different in the pre- and postmortem examinations due to an antemortem “error in charting” in which Tooth # 2 was confused with Tooth # 3.

Other “errors in charting,” to explain why the postmortem observations are completely different from the antemortem charts involve Tooth #13 and Tooth #14. 

Labelled “consistent” is Tooth # 8 which is considered “normal” in the antemortem side of the chart and “rotated distally” on the postmortem side.   Perhaps Marina got the pliers out to give her hubby a good oral argument. 

Teeth 16 and 17 are “missing” only in the antemortem exams, which, again, might be explained as pre-emergent” wisdom teeth, except they should be visible in radiographs.

There are other anomalies on the chart, but Dr. Norton concluded, “After much study of the dental records, it was decided independently by each team member that the dental records were authentic and could be used to support an identification made from the dentition.”  It took three years for the Norton Report to be issued after the exhumation was completed.  In all that time, are we really to conclude that the decision was made “independently by each team member?”

Thanks to David Josephs for bringing the issue of the Norton Report dental records to our attention. Although both Oswalds were in the USMC and so the dental records of Classic Oswald should match at least SOME Marine Corps records, this subject appears to be hardly the slam-dunk Mr. Parnell wants us to believe it is.  I’m increasingly reminded of the human hair identification scandal the FBI was caught up in a decade or two ago.  Based on the FBI’s junk science, people were actually convicted of serious crimes based on so-called human hair identifcations that, in at least once case re-analyzed using DNA evidence, turned out to be from a dog.

 

Jim,

Well of course the dental records of the exhumed body match those of antemortem Lee Harvey Oswald -- after making a number of adjustments to account for obvious errors -- given that it was Oswald who was buried there! Duh!

Oh, sorry... I was using a little LNer thinking there.

Actually, I suspect that Oswald's dental records matched my own when I was 23.... after making a number of adjustments.

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

P.S. Good point about there being x-rays, which definitely would have shown those wisdom teeth being either present or absent.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

[deleted]

Edited October 6, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I understand the CIA did some bad things and I wouldn't put it past certain individuals to do just about anything. But how did they know they would need to give both boys mastoid operations because one might be exhumed?

I have a hard time believing the CIA would give the one Oswald an unnecessary mastoidectomy while still alive. But I can believe they'd give the dead body a crude one. Especially given all the widespread suspicion of conspiracy going on and even suspicions of there being two Oswalds. Obviously they would have had to do it when nobody was talking about exhumation, so it could have gone unnoticed..

I wonder if they could have given the corpse a mastoidectomy before it was buried. Would they possibly have thought that far ahead?

 

[Roger DeLaria]

I remember reading somewhere (can't for the life of me remember where) that when the body was exhumed, they noticed the bottom of the concrete vault the casket was in was broken, and something not right about the head. The idea being when "they" went to remove the body, they tried raising the vault with a small crane/lift or something, and the vault being too heavy snapped the line and the concrete broke.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Roger DeLaria

[Sandy Larsen]

8 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I will post what Greg Parker writes on the school records if and when he adds more. He has told Sandy he can't explain it more simply so he may be done.

I think I understand what Greg was trying to get across.

We believe that the numbers under "Re-Ad" are the number of days a student is present. Greg believes that the number is from the calculation

     TOTAL SCHOOL DAYS  minus  DAYS ABSENT

For children who enroll before the semester begins, our Re-Ad number will be the same as Greg's. But for students who enroll late, the number will be different. For example, suppose there are 90 days in a semester. And suppose a student enrolls on day 45 and is absent 1 day. Under our interpretation, the student's record would show 1 absence and 44 Re-Ad days. In contrast, under Greg's interpretation the student's record would show 1 absences and 89 Re-Ad days.

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I think I understand what Greg was trying to get across.

We believe that the numbers under "Re-Ad" are the number of days a student is present. Greg believes that the number is from the calculation

     TOTAL SCHOOL DAYS  minus  DAYS ABSENT

For children who enroll before the semester begins, our Re-Ad number will be the same as Greg's.

 

If Oswald enrolled at Beauregard before the Fall 1953 semester began, then both our interpretation and Greg's interpretation of the Re-Ad column will result in identical numbers. So in this case the school record tells us nothing about the meaning of Re-Ad. We might be right, or Greg might be right.

 

11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But for students who enroll late, the number will be different. For example, suppose there are 90 days in a semester. And suppose a student enrolls on day 45 and is absent 1 day. Under our interpretation, the student's record would show 1 absence and 44 Re-Ad days. In contrast, under Greg's interpretation the student's record would show 1 absences and 89 Re-Ad days.

 

However, If Oswald enrolled at Beauregard late, some time during the Fall 1953 semester, then our interpretation of the Re-Ad column is wrong and Greg's interpretation is right. Because the record shows the Re-Ad number to be 89, which is what Greg's interpretation dictates. Our Re-Ad number would dictate some number less than 89. Specifically, it would be 89 minus the number of days late Oswald was in enrolling.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

38 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I think I understand what Greg was trying to get across.

We believe that the numbers under "Re-Ad" are the number of days a student is present. Greg believes that the number is from the calculation

     TOTAL SCHOOL DAYS  minus  DAYS ABSENT

For children who enroll before the semester begins, our Re-Ad number will be the same as Greg's.

 

If Oswald enrolled at Beauregard before the Fall 1953 semester began, then both our interpretation and Greg's interpretation of the Re-Ad column will result in identical numbers. So in this case the school record tells us nothing about the meaning of Re-Ad. We might be right, or Greg might be right.

 

Quote

But for students who enroll late, the number will be different. For example, suppose there are 90 days in a semester. And suppose a student enrolls on day 45 and is absent 1 day. Under our interpretation, the student's record would show 1 absence and 44 Re-Ad days. In contrast, under Greg's interpretation the student's record would show 1 absences and 89 Re-Ad days.

 

However, If Oswald enrolled at Beauregard late, some time during the Fall 1953 semester, then our interpretation of the Re-Ad column is wrong and Greg's interpretation is right. Because the record shows the Re-Ad number to be 89, which is what Greg's interpretation dictates. Our Re-Ad number would dictate some number less than 89. Specifically, it would be 89 minus the number of days late Oswald was in enrolling.

 

I've thought about this for a while, and I now believe there is a third interpretation of "Re-Ad" that is the correct one.

The number of days a child is absent may be useful to teachers and parents, but it's not particularly important to school administrators. Schools generally get funded based upon the total number of days attended by all the school's pupils. For example, if 500 students attend 89 days on average in a semester, the schools will be funded for 500 x 89 = 44500 pupil-days of attendance. If attendance decreases, then so does funding.

Under our (not Greg's) current interpretation of Re-Ad, if a student is transferred from another school half way through the semester, the funding would drop significantly because it would show that the student attended only half the number of school days. This could result in administrators discouraging re-admissions into their schools.

I believe that the Re-Ad number is the number of days a student attends his current school, plus the number of days he attended at the school he transferred from. I believe that Re-Ad stands for "Re-Admission," and is named that way because of this practice of transferring attended school days.

"Re-Ad" is short for "Re-Admission," which is short for "School Days Attended across Re-Admissions."

 

[Mathias Baumann]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I've thought about this for a while, and I now believe there is a third interpretation of "Re-Ad" that is the correct one.

The number of days a child is absent may be useful to teachers and parents, but it's not particularly important to school administrators. Schools generally get funded based upon the total number of days attended by all the school's pupils. For example, if 500 students attend 89 days on average in a semester, the schools will be funded for 500 x 89 = 44500 pupil-days of attendance. If attendance decreases, then so does funding.

Under our (not Greg's) current interpretation of Re-Ad, if a student is transferred from another school half way through the semester, the funding would drop significantly because it would show that the student attended only half the number of school days. This could result in administrators discouraging re-admissions into their schools.

I believe that the Re-Ad number is the number of days a student attends his current school, plus the number of days he attended at the school he transferred from. I believe that Re-Ad stands for "Re-Admission," and is named that way because of this practice of transferring attended school days.

"Re-Ad" is short for "Re-Admission," which is short for "School Days Attended across Re-Admissions."

 

Dear Sandy, dear Greg,

I stopped following this debate a long time ago, because I don't know how to interpret High School records. And it's become obvious to me that no-one involved here in ths debate  knows for sure how to interpret those records. So I think this debate is leading nowhere because everyone involved interprets the records in a way they think will prove their preconceived opinion right. I think only someone with expertise in High School administration could settle this matter once and for all. But on an Education Forum such a person should not be too hard to find. Why don't you address this specific question in a new thread?

[Jim Hargrove]

Hi, Mathias,

That sounds like a good idea.  I'm sending a note to James Gordon to see if he, or someone he knows, can take a look at these docs for us.  Thanks for the suggestion.