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

[W. Tracy Parnell]

38 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Let's see:  Castle, Glidden, Goutier, Herd, King, Malden, Rubenstein and Sawchuck are all at Santa Ana with one Oswald while the other men are at El Toro with the other...
also at separate times (Gorsky)

Here's a little advice David. Anyone can say anything-that doesn't make it a fact. But I'm glad to see you guys do pay attention to the ROKC forum after all.

[Bernie Laverick]

So when was 'Harvey's' mastoidectomy? Did they really perform it on a 6 year old boy in case one day many years later he may be dug up from his grave...?

Absolutely barking mad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Michael Walton]

On 10/6/2017 at 5:28 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

All Jenner meant was that some of the things Ely came up with would have to be changed or left out of the WR because, in his opinion, they were incorrect. After all, nobody is perfect. Much ado about nothing.

Tracy - see, once again this is a perfect example of  cherry picking things to fit their round peg into the square hole.  Think about it - to them, everything has been faked.  But in THIS case, we have a WC lawyer - you know those folks that faked everything according to the dumb asses' way of thinking -  and his taking the statement of this Ely is oh, it's spot on!  So everything else has been faked by the WC and its lawyers EXCEPT this statement.

What a joke.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Bernie and Michael,

Good points both and thanks!

[Sandy Larsen]

19 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

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.

Mathias,

Just to set the record straight, I am not interpreting the meaning of "Re-Ad" in a way to support my H&L opinion. I don't work that way.

And, for the record, the way I do interpret "Re-Ad" does not support my H&L opinion. (Which proves that my prior paragraph is true.)

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

17 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Greg Parker has replied to Sandy's latest post about the school records:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records#20974

Greg writes:

<blockquote>We seem to be finally on the same page because this is the interpretation I have being trying to get across all along by repeating that the the Beauregard records incorporate transferred records from PS 44. All that remains now is for you to admit that this shoots the H & L interpretation of two boys at two schools simultaneously right in the butt.</blockquote>

 

I didn't say that the Beauregard school record shows that Oswald received some transfer days from PS 44 (or any other school). I said that it is a possibility. There is no way to tell if Oswald received any transfer days, and if so, how many.

However, the fact (as the record shows) that Oswald passed two classes at Beauregard that semester proves that the number of transferred days could not have been very many. This is corroborated by the fact that Oswald attended enough days at PS 44 to pass all his classes there. (For clarification of this paragraph, read my question for Greg below. It's more straightforward.)

Tell me this Greg: How would it be possible for Oswald to attend PS 44 long enough to pass his classes there (which he did), and still have enough time left in the semester to transfer to Beauregard and pass even more classes there (which he also did)?

 

P.S. Mathias: Read what I highlighted in red in Greg's response above. That is an example of a person doing what you said... interpreting data in a way intended to conform to his per-conceived beliefs. Greg does that, I do not.

 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

As we examined the skull, the small hole in the left mastoid process leapt out. Its man-made edges were rounded and smooth, healed but not natural. It was an old lesion that couldn’t be faked. Our dead man and Lee Harvey Oswald had both undergone a mastoidectomy in the distant past.

DiMaio, Dr. Vincent; Franscell, Ron. Morgue: A Life in Death (p. 118). St. Martin's Press. Kindle Edition.

The mastectomy could have been done in the 1960s. That was a "distant past" relative to the date of the exhumation, 1981. The body suffered a great deal of decomposition, especially given that the top was leaking water.

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Unfortunately for the members of the 'Harvey and Lee' cult, ....

That's where I stop reading. Because ....

"When you resort to name calling, you've lost the argument. Then only fellow losers continue listening."
-- Anonymous

 

[Bernie Laverick]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

That's where I stop reading. Because ....

"When you resort to name calling, you've lost the argument. Then only fellow losers continue listening."
-- Anonymous

 

Yep, that's exactly what we say about your cult members. You do know that you now belong to a cult? You don't like name calling? Go and tell Josephs that. That is ALL he has to offer...

Pot, kettle, black.

So Sandy do you honestly think that they now performed this operation after he died? Wouldn't that be immediately noticeable to a medically trained eye? Would an operation on dead tissue heal in the same way it would had they been alive?

If the super bad guys had been capable of somehow manipulating the findings why did they bother with the operation in the first place? Why didn't they just coerce, torture or bribe those doing the exhumation to prove there was NO mastoid operation. But no, they performed an operation on a dead man so that when he was exhumed people could never be suspicious that they were two Oswalds. Really? And you wonder why we call you a cult!

It's either that or...They did it when he was 6 years old in anticipation of the above scenario? Jim believes that. Josephs believes that. But you don't.

This is your story so it is expedient of you to provide the proof of what you think happened. Just telling us that the CIA were prepared to give people LSD to see what happened in your eyes is PROOF of H&L. Nope, sorry, that's too childish for words. Show us the proof!!!

If I tell you that I believe the Queen of England is a serial killer the onus is on me to prove that. It is not on you to disprove it. If my 'evidence' for this was some bizarre story that isn't backed up by documentary evidence, but tittle tattle from a few unreliable witnesses and differences in the record, you probably wouldn't even engage me in a debate.

So where was Elizabeth when the Yorkshire Ripper was on 'his' killing spree in the 70's? It was SO obviously her that did them. Actually that's not true, MI5 created a double of her to do these killings, (because these super bad guys are capable of anything!). We don't know why they did this but it will be because of something bad they were planning. Of course you may think that is ridiculous. If so, it's because you must be Cointepro trying to throw people off the scent . We know it was a double of Queen Elizabeth that did all the slayings because we have pictures of them and one has sloping shoulders. Do you honestly think these two people are the same???

[Jim Hargrove]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I didn't say that the Beauregard school record shows that Oswald received some transfer days from PS 44 (or any other school). I said that it is a possibility. There is no way to tell if Oswald received any transfer days, and if so, how many.

However, the fact (as the record shows) that Oswald passed two classes at Beauregard that semester proves that the number of transferred days could not have been very many. This is corroborated by the fact that Oswald attended enough days at PS 44 to pass all his classes there. (For clarification of this paragraph, read my question for Greg below. It's more straightforward.)

Tell me this Greg: How would it be possible for Oswald to attend PS 44 long enough to pass his classes there (which he did), and still have enough time left in the semester to transfer to Beauregard and pass even more classes there (which he also did)?

 

P.S. Mathias: Read what I highlighted in red in Greg's response above. That is an example of a person doing what you said... interpreting data in a way intended to conform to his per-conceived beliefs. Greg does that, I do not.

 

More important may be the fact that Beauregard didn’t know the New York City school Oswald attended, and so it is unlikely it obtained any records at all from it.  There were four or five PS 44s in the five boroughs of NYC, and none of them was named “PS 44 Byron Jr. High,” as indicated on the New Orleans cumulative records.  H&L critics will just say mistakes happen, but I think there is a better explanation, which is that Beauregard was deliberately given the wrong NYC school information.

Why?  You have to look at the full picture.  John Pic told the Warren Commission that in the fall of ‘52 his brother enrolled in a school a school just a few blocks from his Manhattan apartment.  In his book, Robert Oswald said "Lee entered the 8th grade at P.S. 44 on Columbus Avenue at 76th St." This school is William J. O'Shea Junior High School, PS 44 in Manhattan, and is 2 1/2 miles from Pic's apartment. But the Warren Commission/FBI puts Oswald, at this time, at Trinity Lutheran School and PS 117 in the Bronx, and then at P.S. 44 in the Bronx, all eight miles or so from Pic’s apartment.

Assuming John Pic and Robert Oswald were right, it was LEE Oswald who attended school in Manhattan at least part of the time that HARVEY went to school in the Bronx.  And it was HARVEY who was perpetually truant and soon in trouble with NYC authorities. All of this may have been more easily untangled but right after the assassination, after Judge Florence Kelley gave the FBI original NYC school records of Oswald's attendance, the originals all disappeared and the FBI soon gave the Warren Commission photographs of the documents.

HARVEY Oswald and his caretaker had to flee New York City because a scheduled court appearance over his truancy would have been too dangerous.  His caretaker mother could barely remember any of the details of her “son’s” alleged biography, and who knows what HARVEY might have said to a judge.  LEE Oswald and Marguerite soon had to flee New York as well, and for a very simple reason.  HARVEY Oswald had been perpetually truant, not LEE.  When hauled into court for truancy, can you imagine how angry LEE would have been?  The solution for both problems was found in New Orleans.
 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Jim Hargrove

[W. Tracy Parnell]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The mastectomy could have been done in the 1960s. That was a "distant past" relative to the date of the exhumation, 1981. The body suffered a great deal of decomposition, especially given that the top was leaking water.

Sandy Said:

But I can believe they'd give the dead body a crude one.

The quote was offered as a response to your suggestion above that a crude mastoid operation could have been performed on the body. It couldn't have-they can tell those things. And the skull and bones had not deteriorated at all in 18 years, just the soft tissues. So, you are left with the theory that they somehow knew they would have to give an unnecessary operation to one boy.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Sandy Said:

But I can believe they'd give the dead body a crude one.

The quote was offered as a response to your suggestion above that a crude mastoid operation could have been performed on the body. It couldn't have-they can tell those things. And the skull and bones had not deteriorated at all in 18 years, just the soft tissues. So, you are left with the theory that they somehow knew they would have to give an unnecessary operation to one boy.

By crude I merely meant one not meant to prevent hearing loss and other complications, and one not done with care so as to prevent secondary infections. In other words, a quickie. After 18 years, chemical changes on the surface of the bones would have occurred and investigators wouldn't have been able to tell if the mastoidectomy had been done before Oswald's death or after.

And BTW, bones do decompose with moisture. And so Oswald's bones were indeed in the process of decomposing.

[Michael Walton]

Here's what we're actually talking about here.  It's a pretty fascinating medical procedure. But what's equally fascinating is how can anyone think that this was done on the one and only Oswald because he legitimately needed the surgery, and then, for no legitimate or medical reason, also be done on Oswald's "clone" just so it matches up years later so that the clone and Oswald have matching skulls from matching surgeries? 

Watch the video and then ask yourself - would the secret agents have the ability - the foresight if you will - to somehow know that their clone would need this type of surgery then actually perform it on their clone just so the clone has matching scars and post-surgery wounds like Oswald?

It's truly mind boggling to think anyone would think that but according to the HL supporters, they actually do believe it happened this way.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

By crude I merely meant one not meant to prevent hearing loss and other complications, and one not done with care so as to prevent secondary infections. In other words, a quickie. After 18 years, chemical changes on the surface of the bones would have occurred and investigators wouldn't have been able to tell if the mastoidectomy had been done before Oswald's death or after.

And BTW, bones do decompose with moisture. And so Oswald's bones were indeed in the process of decomposing.

You said and I quote "dead body." My original reply was to show that it was not possible to give a "dead body" a mastoid operation. And bones do not decompose in 18 years-remnants of the clothing were still present. Go back and read the quote from Dimaio. Because it was smooth and rounded it had healed over time and could not have been faked. You don't think they know how to tell the difference between a mastoid operation that heals over time and a faked defect? Face facts-you are back to three theories:

1. "Harvey" was given a mastoid operation which the all knowing planners somehow knew would be necessary someday.

2. Everyone who attended the exhumation was in on it.

3. The exhumation disproves the H&L theory, which is the correct choice for all reasonable people.

The H&L brain trust should get together and decide which explanation they are going with.

Edited October 7, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Bernie Laverick]

Sandy thinks that operation was performed on a dead body. Does that seem in any way likely?

That just leaves you with the clone ('Harvey') having it done by the super bad guys as a young boy just in case he is dug up so his skull will fit the medical record. Isn't that as likely as the two unrelated boys in question growing up to look almost identical fifteen years later? (Sloping shoulders excluded...well, on just the one photo anyway!)

The game's up. You've put up a thoroughly dishonest fight from start to finish. You've distracted many good threads with your nonsense. And you've massively assisted the forces of the real culprits by painting this community as utter cranks and therefore allowing a free ride for the official narrative. Well done.

But you've reached the end of the road now. This is the killer punch. No school records. No sloping shoulders. All that is meaningless if the following conundrum cannot be solved.  

So let's talk about this exhumation and see how it can possibly be that 'Harvey' turns out to have had the exact same childhood surgical operation that we know 'Lee' had? 

We say it is because they are the same person. I know, it's a wild crazy idea. (Funny how 'Lee' disappeared off the scene the very weekend of the assassination and was never heard of again.)

If you have no explanation for this everything else is totally meaningless. In fact by failing to address this just makes the alternative explanations for the 'discrepancies' and witness testimony as being the probable explanation for them. As H&L is now ruled out, (unless they can jump this mastoid bridge), we can be sure that what pitiful 'evidence' they have presented is almost certainly explained by a montage of all the possible reasons given by many people opposed to this silliness.

Look, take H&L out of the equation, and who cares why the school records don't seemingly corroborate? Harvey, (the one shot by Ruby) was the clone of 'Lee' but when he was exhumed he had 'Lee's' skull (which hadn't been detached!). Maybe it was when he was in Hungary learning Russian and he just coincidentally had the exact same medical issue as Lee did. After all they grew up to look identical, why wouldn't that include scarring from an obscure medical procedure carried out at exactly the same age and ear?

What's it to be chaps? Abuse? Info dump? School records. SILENCE is the tactic they always use for this crucial but unexplainable problem.