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

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

2 hours 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."

 

Yes, I know what I said.

 

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

My original reply was to show that it was not possible to give a "dead body" a mastoid operation.

 

Of course a dead body can be given a mastoidectomy. Why do you think it can't?

 

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

And bones do not decompose in 18 years-remnants of the clothing were still present.

 

Do you think that bones don't decompose for a certain number of years, and then suddenly begin decomposing? That would be a silly notion. They begin decomposing shortly after being exposed to bacteria and fungi. The rate of decomposition depends upon the environment.

Quoting from this webpage:

Bones are largely a fibrous matrix of collagen fibres, impregnated with calcium phosphate. In warm, damp environments, bacteria and fungi will attack the collagen protein and the skeleton will crumble over the course of a few years. Calcium phosphate isn’t attacked by micro-organisms, but it reacts readily with acid, so bones decompose fastest in well aerated, peaty soils.

Oswald's bones were certainly decomposed to some extent -- even if very little -- when exhumed. To think otherwise is simply naive.

 

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

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.

A nice, smooth, removal of bone could be done with a Dremel tool in very little time.

 

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

You don't think they know how to tell the difference between a mastoid operation that heals over time and a faked defect?

How would they know the difference between a real and fake mastoidectomy? Do you think they've studied fake mastoidectomies? Do you think they've studied how real and fake mastoidectomies react to water, bacteria, and fungi after death?

 

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

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.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Sandy,

OK, we have you on record-the mastoid operation was performed on the body after it was dead. Perhaps you can explain to us who did this and when? And why the exhumation doctors didn't know the difference between a natural operation and one performed with a dremel tool? Or are you saying the exhumation doctors used the dremel tool themselves as part of the plot?

Keep in mind everybody, this is the same Sandy Larsen who is only interested in the "truth" and has no agenda.

 

[Michael Walton]

7 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Keep in mind everybody, this is the same Sandy Larsen who is only interested in the "truth" and has no agenda.

Yes, agreed. And this is also the same person who said, when I offered a completely different take of why this couldn't have happened based on the outstanding write up by Bill Simpich called State Secret, he said:

"Just because Bill Simpich said something doesn't make it so."

I mean, isn't that like the pot calling the kettle black? You'd think someone interested in the truth and with no agenda would at least consider that alternative SS story. Nope.  Not a one bit. Even a well-documented story like SS is , to him, easily dismissed and a "barium meal" to use his phrase.

Yet, with HL it's "oh he had the mastoid surgery to match the body in the coffin."  Then it's "oh well it happened when he was dead and was done post-mortem." The silliness just never ends.

[Sandy Larsen]

11 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Sandy,

OK, we have you on record-the mastoid operation was performed on the body after it was dead.

Tracy,

That is just one hypothesis among others.

As for my idea of using a Dremel tool, I got that from watching a video of a mastoidectomy being performed. The tool used by the surgeon looked very much like a Dremel tool.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tracy,

That is just one hypothesis among others.

As for my idea of using a Dremel tool, I got that from watching a video of a mastoidectomy being performed. The tool used by the surgeon looked very much like a Dremel tool.

 

Well, I think the H&L gang needs to get together and decide what there explanation is. We have scientific evidence provided by the top experts in the country in 1981. You need to refute that evidence not just offer "what if" type scenarios in order to be credible.

[Sandy Larsen]

4 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

16 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Keep in mind everybody, this is the same Sandy Larsen who is only interested in the "truth" and has no agenda.

Yes, agreed.

 

And I also said that the mastoidectomy issue is a strong point against the Harvey & Lee theory.

 

4 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

And this is also the same person who said, when I offered a completely different take of why this couldn't have happened based on the outstanding write up by Bill Simpich called State Secret, he said:

"Just because Bill Simpich said something doesn't make it so."

 

And I'm right in saying that. You treat what Simpich wrote as though it were the final word on the truth. It isn't. There are competing theories. Jim DiEugenio doesn't buy Simpich's theory (which is based on Peter Dale Scott's), so don't be surprised that there are others who don't either.

 

4 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

I mean, isn't that like the pot calling the kettle black? You'd think someone interested in the truth and with no agenda would at least consider that alternative SS story. Nope. 

 

I considered it and studied it. I don't believe it is what happened.

 

4 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Not a one bit. Even a well-documented story like SS is , to him, easily dismissed and a "barium meal" to use his phrase.

That's not my phrase. That's Peter Dale Scott's phrase which he uses to explain his theory, the theory which Simpich adopts in State Secret.

 

4 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Yet, with HL it's "oh he had the mastoid surgery to match the body in the coffin."  Then it's "oh well it happened when he was dead and was done post-mortem." The silliness just never ends.

There is one strong point against H&L theory (the mastoidectomy), and several strong points in H&L's favor. H&L theory is way ahead.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

12 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Well, I think the H&L gang needs to get together and decide what there explanation is. We have scientific evidence provided by the top experts in the country in 1981. You need to refute that evidence not just offer "what if" type scenarios in order to be credible.

Why do we need to do that for the mastoid thing, but you guys don't need to do it for all evidence pointing to two Oswalds?

 

[Jim Hargrove]

If anyone reading this wonders why so many people here are working so hard to discredit the subject of this thread, just click the link below. 

HarveyandLee.net
 

[Bernie Laverick]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Why do we need to do that for the mastoid thing, but you guys don't need to do it for all evidence pointing to two Oswalds?

 

Because it's your theory and the onus is on you to prove it. Just writing off a major piece of documented evidence that proves that the boy who had the operation, 'Lee', is the one who was in that coffin, when your whole theory depends upon it being 'Harvey' is incredibly dishonest. Can you not see how silly this is? It's like a LN finally accepting that Oswald was on the steps at the time of the assassination, but still thinks all the other 'evidence' convicts him!

"That is just one hypothesis among others" What others? Is there any documented evidence to back up these other hypothesis or are they just a collection made-up-on-the-spot, off the wall 'what-ifs'?

This thread should now be declared over and archived. The bottom of the barrel has been reached and it's bringing this whole forum into disrepute. 

 

[Bernie Laverick]

2 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

If anyone reading this wonders why so many people here are working so hard to discredit the subject of this thread, just click the link below. 

HarveyandLee.net
 

And this is the hypocrite constantly baiting us to debate Greg's demolition of his nonsense here on this forum instead of posting links to Greg's. Jeez, they have absolutely no shame!

Stop being a coward Jim and explain why 'Lee's' skull was found in that grave when your whole theory hinges on it being 'Harvey'? So Harvey had the operation when...?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Why do we need to do that for the mastoid thing, but you guys don't need to do it for all evidence pointing to two Oswalds?

Because the evidence against the H&L theory is scientific evidence. It is the exhumation and the  handwriting and photo evidence from the HSCA. The evidence for H&L is misread records and your interpretation of them and mistaken witnesses.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

11 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Because the evidence against the H&L theory is scientific evidence. It is the exhumation and the  handwriting and photo evidence from the HSCA. The evidence for H&L is misread records and your interpretation of them and mistaken witnesses.

That sums it up nicely. It's about the quality of the evidence, not the quantity. It really doesn't matter how many witness statements can be dredged up to support the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy, because witness statements rely on memories, in this case very often decades-old memories, and human memory is fallible. You could put forward any number of such witnesses to support the fantasy, or any number of dubiously interpreted documentary records or photographs. It doesn't matter; there is always a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation for this type of evidence.

The evidence of the mastoidectomy on the body in Oswald's grave is far stronger than that. It is supported by a number of scientists, all of them with solid professional reputations, whose report was published in a well-known and respected scientific journal. Every alternative explanation for this particular piece of evidence requires far-fetched speculation:

- Perhaps the scientists who exumed Oswald's body risked ruining their careers by giving the body a post-mortem mastoidectomy.

- Perhaps the scientists deliberately lied in their report.

- Perhaps the editors of the Journal of Forensic Sciences were leaned on to publish that false report.

- Perhaps an unknown six-year-old Russian-speaking Hungarian refugee boy was given an unnecessary mastoidectomy operation by an unknown surgeon in an unknown hospital on the orders of some equally unknown Bad Guys just in case the boy's body might need to be dug up nearly forty years later.

- Perhaps aliens from outer space beamed Oswald's body up into their spacecraft and replaced it with that of his clone.

Scientific evidence versus pure unsupported speculation. It is irrational to prefer far-fetched speculation over solid scientific evidence. That's what members of cults do; they cling to their beliefs no matter what. Unless anyone can come up with a reasonable explanation for the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave, the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory is dead.

[Jim Hargrove]

17 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

And this is the hypocrite constantly baiting us to debate Greg's demolition of his nonsense here on this forum instead of posting links to Greg's. Jeez, they have absolutely no shame!

Stop being a coward Jim and explain why 'Lee's' skull was found in that grave when your whole theory hinges on it being 'Harvey'? So Harvey had the operation when...?

Of course, Mr. Laverick knows full well that no one posts more documentary evidence here than I do.  He just wants to be angry at me, and he wants to call me a hypocrite for posting a link to the subject matter of this entire thread.

And Mr. Laverick wants to call me not only a hypocrite but a coward as well because I dare to point out that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence presented by me and others in this thread shows that the exhumation results were fixed, maybe not by the people involved in the exhumation, but more likely by the people charged with preparing and preserving the evidence.  

Mr. Laverick is apparently more interested in involving the Queen of England in this case than in discussing anything other than the exhumation.

[Jim Hargrove]

High level authorities in the United States government were aware for many years of the distinct possibility of two “Lee Harvey Oswalds.”  As early as 1960, Hoover wrote, “there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald’s birth certificate....”  

In the hours after the assassination, before determining whether the assassination involved a conspiracy or if other members of the federal government were targeted, FBI agents descended on the schools and employers of the teen-aged Lee Harvey Oswald confiscating records that never appeared again as originals.  Why?  Because evidence for two Oswalds clearly went back to the 1950s.

For example, in 1953 Lee HARVEY Oswald was sent to Youth House for habitual truancy from a NYC school.  Documents collected by the FBI and published by the Warren Commission seemed to say that Youth House personnel saw this Oswald as a “well-built” and “well-developed” boy.

 

But this was an invention of the FBI.  Both Dr. Milton Kurian and Dr. Renatus Hartogs of Youth House said later that the Oswald they met was a slight, underdeveloped kid.

Dr. Kurian said the Oswald he met (HARVEY) was no more that 4’ 6” or 4’ 8” tall, even though NYC records made less than a month later would indicate Oswald’s height as 5’ 4 1/2” tall (that was Lee).  In a letter to Jackie Kennedy written in early February 1964, Dr. Kurian described Oswald as a “slender, underdeveloped boy.”

Dr. Renatus Hartogs, Milton Kurian’s associate at Youth House, also described little Harvey in sharp contrast to the reports the FBI produced.  Dr. Hartogs said that the Oswald he met was a “slender, dark-haired boy” with “an underfed look, reminiscent of the starved children I had seen in concentration camps.”

The size difference between the two Oswalds decreased in the decade between Harvey’s Youth House appearance and the assassination, but it continued for the whole time.  When LEE Harvey Oswald was was released from the Marine Corps, his height was 71” (5’ 11”) and his weight was 150 lbs.

But on a slab in the Dallas morgue, Lee HARVEY Oswald’s height was just 69” (5’ 9”).  These were measurements made by medical professionals, not casual observers.  

After the publications of the Warren Commission, many of the earliest and best critics pointed to the likelihood that two Oswalds were involved in events leading up to the assassination.  For example, in her 1967 book entitled Accessories After the Fact, Sylvia Meagher had an entire section devoted to two Oswalds.

 

The H&L critics want to make all this and so much more go away pointing to the exhumation and the HSCA Vol. VII.  Looking at the preponderance of evidence, it is clear that those results were fixed in one way or another, just as so much in this case was.  Why?

Because it was clear that the Oswald Project was a product of U.S. Intelligence, and U.S. Intelligence was intimately involved in the assassination of JFK.  See my next post.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Much of the reason for the enormous USG cover-up in this case stems from the simple and utterly obvious fact that the Oswald Project was connected to U.S. Intelligence.  Lee HARVEY Oswald was a spy.

From Harvey and Lee:

Oswald violated two US laws and should have been prosecuted

1st violation. Oswald's request for a hardship discharge in 1959 was based upon
his claim that his "mother" was partially disabled and unable to work. He represented
to the Marine Corps that he needed a dependency discharge so that he could return to
Texas and take care of her. But Oswald obtained a passport before he was discharged from the
Marine Corps, never took care of his "mother," and within a few weeks had "defected" to the Soviet
Union.

Oswald's false representations violated Sec. 883. Article 83, of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice-fraudulent separation from the armed forces lty false representation:

TITLE 10- ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A- General Military Law
PART II- PERSONNEL
CHAPTER 47- UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE
SUBCHAPTER X - PUNITIVE ARTICLES

Sec. 883. Art. 83. Fraudulent enlistment, appointment, or separation
Any person who -

(1) procures his own enlistment or appointment in the armed forces by knowingly
false representation or deliberate concealment as to his qualifications for that he did violate US law.
enlistment or appointment and receives pay or allowances thereunder; or

(2) procures his own separation from the armed forces by knowingly false representation
or deliberate concealment as to his eligibility for that separation;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 66.)

It did not matter how long Oswald had been out of the country, he should have
been charged with falsely misrepresenting his eligibility for separation.

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

2nd violation. When Oswald visited the US embassy in Moscow on Saturday,
October 31, he had not prepared nor signed a "Certificate of Loss of Nationality," which
was required in order for him to legally renounce his citizenship according to the Expatriation
Act of 1907. This "legal formality" made his oral renunciation to Richard
Snyder meaningless, but allowed KGB listening devices within the Embassy to pick up
the conversation. His appearance at the Embassy also gave him an excuse to leave his US
passport with Richard Snyder, which prevented it's probable confiscation by Soviet authorities.

Oswald did not violate US law when he attempted to renounce his citizenship,
but when he told Richard Snyder that he INTENDED to give military secrets to the
Soviets, he did violate US law. Oswald should have been detained at the Embassy,
charged with espionage for INTENDING to disclose military secrets, and returned to
the US to face trial. And, because he "defected," the law required a full and complete
investigation by the US Attorney General. The AG was required to file a brief because
it was a matter of National Security, regardless of the seriousness of "the act."

As the SS Maasdam sailed into port, there was nobody waiting to arrest Oswald
for falsely misrepresenting his eligibility for separation from the Marine Corps or arrest
him for threatening to give military secrets to the Soviets. Researchers are correct in
suggesting that failure to arrest Oswald either at the US Embassy in Moscow or upon
his return to the US was a good indication that he was linked with US intelligence. 

--from Harvey and Lee, pp. 393-394, Copyright © 2003 by John Armstrong.  All rights reserved.