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

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

As early as 1960, Hoover wrote, “there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald’s birth certificate....”  

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Dr. Kurian said the Oswald he met (HARVEY) was no more that 4’ 6” or 4’ 8” tall

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/dr-milton-kurian.html

 

[Bernie Laverick]

31 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

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.

"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..."

What overwhelming preponderance of evidence have you shown? You haven't the faintest idea how 'Lee's' skull was found inside 'Harvey's' grave. You've been banging on about how they had both had the same operation and that explains the identical surgical scar. You even cited the LSD test to show just how far the super bad guys would go, and that performing an operation on a six year old boy in anticipation of him being dug up decades later is totally consistent with how the SBGs operate. But now you've ditched that and decided it sounds a bit too cranky. So we go back to the generic fall back cop-out - "the results were fixed"!

Jim doesn't really believe any of this. It's just a product to sell. Like houses. Or toothpaste. Jim reminds me of those unscrupulous slippery salesmen who sell over-priced crappy time-share apartments to gullible fools. You only need a small hit rate to make your margin. Books can be overpriced too. Some books are hugely expensive. Again, you only need a small hit rate to make a healthy margin. I'm not saying Jim is profiting from this activity. Far from it. This is the H&L book so no one's getting rich here. How many have been sold in twenty years? 48? 62? Over a 100? 

Says it all....

 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

New film by Stan Dane called "Barking Mad" (scroll down):

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1582-harvey-and-lee-cult-the-interview

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Greg Parker has provided an index to his H&L rebuttals:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1588-harvey-lee-links-to-alternative-explanations

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

As any frequent reader of this thread will have predicted, Jim is yet again trying to divert attention by changing the subject. Don't look over there at the scientific evidence that refutes the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory! Look over here at some trivial anomalies!

Let's keep looking at the scientific evidence. Jim speculates 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" and "it is clear that those results were fixed in one way or another". Where is the documentary evidence that anyone "fixed" the results of the exhumation? There is none. It's pure speculation.

In an earlier post, Jim wrote "I’m not necessarily saying that the exhumation was faked, though I don’t rule it out." Again, vague speculation and no hard evidence. He's scrabbling around, trying to find anything that might allow him to avoid admitting that solid scientific evidence has destroyed his irrational belief.

Let's see if we can get him to narrow down his list of suspects, and see if he can actually provide some evidence to support his speculative claims:

- Was an unnecessary mastoidectomy operation performed on the body in Oswald's grave before that person's death? If so, show us the evidence. If you can't provide any evidence, why does the evidence not exist?

- Was an unnecessary mastoidectomy operation performed on the body in Oswald's grave after that person's death? If so, show us the evidence. If you can't provide any evidence, why does the evidence not exist? You might want to ask Sandy to show you the evidence he discovered, since this seems to be his preferred explanation. Unless Sandy didn't discover any evidence, of course, and he was just speculating too.

- Did CIA operatives (or some alternative Bad Guys) force the scientists to fake their report? If you think they did, show us the evidence. If you can't provide any evidence, why does the evidence not exist?

- Did CIA operatives (or some alternative Bad Guys) fake the report without the scientists' knowledge? If you think they did, show us the evidence. If you can't provide any evidence, why does the evidence not exist?

- Did the editors of the scientific journal believe that the article they published was false? If you think they did, show us the evidence. If you can't provide any evidence, why does the evidence not exist?

[Jim Hargrove]

 

Wow, the H&L critics sure are busy calling me names! Funny how that doesn’t make the evidence go away, for example....

The IMPOSSIBLE 1953 school scenario: Harvey at Youth House for truancy followed by Beauregard JHS in New Orleans while Lee has good attendance both semesters at PS 44 in NYC.

John Pic's inability to recognize clear photographs of his own brother.

The refusal of the Social Security Administration to corroborate the official story of "Oswald's" pre-1962 income, offering instead "Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report regarding employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to service in the Marine Corps."

The Marine Corps records are a gold mine: my favorite chronicles Harvey Oswald's trip to Formosa (Taiwan) while Lee was being treated for VD in Japan.

The Bolton Ford incident while Harvey was in Russia.

Marita Lorenz's secret testimony describing Lee Oswald with anti-Castro operatives in Miami and the Everglades while Harvey was in Russia.

The impossible answer(s) to the simple questions: Could Lee Harvey Oswald drive a car? Did he have a drivers license?

The well documented appearance of Lee Oswald in the balcony of the Texas Theater soon after the murder of J.D. Tippit with the simultaneous arrest of Harvey Oswald on the main floor of the same theater.

The behavior of the FBI in the first 48 hours of the "investigation," during which the Bureau confiscated many of "Lee Harvey Oswald's" school records and employment histories before even determining if there was an assassination conspiracy or if other government officials were targeted.

[Jim Hargrove]

5 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

As any frequent reader of this thread will have predicted, Jim is yet again trying to divert attention by changing the subject. Don't look over there at the scientific evidence that refutes the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory! Look over here at some trivial anomalies!

Actually, it is Mr. Bojczuk who is constantly changing the subject.  Whenever evidence for Two Oswalds is presented, he just says it can't be because of the exhumation.  Or, he misrepresents the evidence and then argues against his own misrepresentation.

[Jim Hargrove]

At any rate, I'm awfully sorry that the H&L critics are so unhappy with me but, really, it isn't my fault that "Lee Harvey Oswald" was a U.S. Intel project.  On the previous page,  I quoted John's write-up showing the laws Lee HARVEY Oswald clearly broke on his false defection to Russia.  That he wasn't prosecuted indicates his activities were approved by the U.S. government.  But there is so much more.... 

20 Facts Indicating the Oswald Project Was Run by the CIA

1. CIA accountant James Wilcott said he made payments to an encrypted account for “Oswald or the Oswald Project.”

2. Antonio Veciana said he saw LHO meeting with CIA’s Maurice Bishop/David Atlee Phillips in Dallas in August 1963.

3. A 1978 CIA memo indicates that a CIA operations officer “had run an agent into the USSR, that man having met a Russian girl and eventually marrying her,” a case very similar to Oswald’s and clearly indicating that the Agency ran a “false defector” program in the 1950s.

4. Robert Webster and LHO "defected" a few months apart in 1959, both tried to "defect" on a Saturday, both possessed "sensitive" information of possible value to the Russians, both were befriended by Marina Prusakova, and both returned to the United States in the spring of 1962.

5. Richard Sprague, Richard Schweiker, and CIA agents Donald Norton and Joseph Newbrough all said LHO was associated with the CIA. 

6. CIA employee Donald Deneslya said he read reports of a CIA "contact" who had worked at a radio factory in Minsk and returned to the US with a Russian wife and child.

7. Kenneth Porter, employee of CIA-connected Collins Radio, left his family to marry (and probably monitor) Marina Oswald after LHO’s death.

8. George Joannides, case officer and paymaster for DRE (which LHO had attempted to infiltrate) was put in charge of lying to the HSCA and never told them of his relationship to DRE.

9. For his achievements, Joannides was given a medal by the CIA.

10. FBI took Oswald off the watch list at the same time a CIA cable gave him a clean bill of political health, weeks after Oswald’s New Orleans arrest and less than two months before the assassination.

11. Oswald’s lengthy “Lives of Russian Workers” essay reads like a pretty good intelligence report.

12. Oswald’s possessions were searched for microdots.

13. Oswald owned an expensive Minox spy camera, which the FBI tried to make disappear.

14. Even the official cover story of the radar operator near American U-2 planes defecting to Russia, saying he would give away all his secrets, and returning home without penalty smells like a spy story.

15. CIA Richard Case Nagell clearly knew about the plot to assassinate JFK and LHO’s relation to it, but the CIA ignored his warnings.

16. LHO always seemed poor as a church mouse, until it was time to go “on assignment.”  For his Russian adventure, we’re to believe he saved all the money he needed for first class European hotels and private tour guides in Moscow from the non-convertible USMC script he saved. In the summer of 1963, he once again seemed to have enough money to travel abroad to Communist nations.

17. To this day, the CIA claims it never interacted with Oswald, that it didn’t even bother debriefing him after the “defection.” What utter bs….

18. After he “defected” to the Soviet Union in 1959, bragging to U.S. embassy personnel in Moscow that he would tell the Russians everything he knew about U.S. military secrets, he returns to the U.S. without punishment and is then in 1963 given the OK to travel to Cuba and the Soviet Union again!

19. Allen Dulles, the CIA director fired by JFK, and the Warren Commission clearly wanted the truth hidden from the public to protect sources and methods of intelligence agencies such as the CIA. Earl Warren said, “Full disclosure was not possible for reasons of national security.”

20. President Kennedy and the CIA clearly were at war with each other in the weeks immediately before his assassination, as evidenced by Arthur Krock's infamous defense of the Agency in the Oct. 3, 1963 New York Times. “Oswald” was the CIA’s pawn.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 minute ago, Jim Hargrove said:

1. CIA accountant James Wilcott said he made payments to an encrypted account for “Oswald or the Oswald Project.”

2. Antonio Veciana said he saw LHO meeting with CIA’s Maurice Bishop/David Atlee Phillips in Dallas in August 1963.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-maurice-bishop-story.html

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1389-hargrove-s-20-alternative-facts-for-those-who-prefer-their-conspiracies-devoid-of-any-reality

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

21 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.

The same is true for those trying to disprove the theory. Otherwise we would have a double standard.

 

18 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

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.

We haven't written it off. We have multiple hypotheses to explain it. None of the hypotheses are very satisfying IMO for the same reason that none of Greg's explanations for the evidence pointing to two Oswalds is very satisfying. They are all unlikely.

But unlikely doesn't mean impossible. A government coverup of the Kennedy assassination seems unlikely. But the evidence shows it happened. I feel the same is true regarding our hypotheses for the mastoidectomy problem. There is so much evidence pointing to two Oswalds IMO that the mastoidectomy problem must have an alternate explanation, i.e. one our hypotheses must be true.

That the government went to so must trouble covering up the JFK assassination tells me that they would do the same to cover up a missing mastoidectomy scar on the corpse of the buried Harvey Oswald.

 

18 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

"That is just one hypothesis among others" What others?

Make Walton and I were talking about Bill Simpich's theory which he lays out is State Secret. Part of his theory has to do with Oswald's records being split up and being in James Angleton's control. Simpich's theory says that this was done as part of Angleton's famous mole hunt. Others, like John Newman, say it was done to draw attention away from Oswald's pre-assassination activities. I happen to believe that Newman is right.

Mike is a proponent of Simpich's theory. For a while he was saying that what Simpich wrote precluded the possibility of there being two Oswalds, and therefore the H&L theory must be wrong.

To that I responded with something like, "Just because Simpich wrote something doesn't make it true." And now Michael is using that statement to somehow show I'm not really searching for the truth.

But really, what I wrote is true. I would say the same about John Newman, John Armstrong, Jim DiEugenio, and any other respected assassination researcher. (Not to mention every other human on earth.) Just because they write something doesn't make it true.

 

18 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

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.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

20 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

23 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

The FBI, CIA, and Warren Commission  misrepresented and faked plenty of scientific evidence to cover up the coup d'etat that was the JFK assassination. I see no reason why they wouldn't do the same to cover up the fact that Harvey Oswald had not suffered and been treated for mastoiditis. Allowing that to be discovered would have resulted in the discovery of sources and methods used by the the Central Intelligence Agency.

 

[Bernie Laverick]

51 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I see no reason why they wouldn't do the same to cover up the fact that Harvey Oswald had not suffered and been treated for mastoiditis. Allowing that to be discovered would have resulted in the discovery of sources and methods used by the the Central Intelligence Agency.

 

But you have discovered it, according to you. If this H&L secret is so razor sharp sensitive that not under any circumstances should it EVER be revealed...how come you are being allowed to do so?

Do you fear you may be in danger Sandy? After all you are spreading the 'truth' about one of the most mind boggling acts of incredible subterfuge carried out by utterly ruthless individuals who would stop at NOTHING to ensure that this is never revealed. But you keep revealing it. I ask you again Sandy. Do you not feel in any danger from those who may, consistent with their past and ongoing behaviour, want to shut you up, like many other truth-seekers before you? After all you are spilling the beans man! You've put your head over the parapet and before you lies the cold dark forces of a ruthless machine designed to spit out anyone or anything that would lead to the discovery of this plot. You do agree that these people are capable of anything, don't you? Yet here you are every night being allowed to show the world everything you've got without any fear of recrimination from those who have, according to you, been capable of almost mind boggling gymnastics to remove ANYTHING that may point to the 'truth'. But they just cannot stop Jim, Josephs, and Sandy Larsen. No sir!.

Maybe you're being followed, or your phone is being tapped, or that myself, Greg, Michael, Jeremy, Tracy, et al have been 'sent' here to discredit your efforts as part of some cointelpro operation organised by high placed members of the CIA who know all about H&L and are desperate to extinguish it. It really is doubtful Sandy, you do know this don't you?

Truth is, you will be of no interest to anyone. Because it didn't happen.

These childish excuses to get around the peer reviewed scientific studies that prove conclusively that there was only one historic LHO are now beyond risible. 

I will be proposing that Jim Hargrove is removed from this forum for deliberately, consciously, and wilfully bringing into disrepute. We don't let Fetzer on here for that very reason. We should apply the same ethics with Hargrove as well.

It's not Waterstones you know Jim...

 

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, Bernie Laverick said:

But you have discovered it, according to you. If this H&L secret is so razor sharp sensitive that not under any circumstances should it EVER be revealed...how come you are being allowed to do so?

Do you fear you may be in danger Sandy? After all you are spreading the 'truth' about one of the most mind boggling acts of incredible subterfuge carried out by utterly ruthless individuals who would stop at NOTHING to ensure that this is never revealed. But you keep revealing it. I ask you again Sandy. Do you not feel in any danger from those who may, consistent with their past and ongoing behaviour, want to shut you up, like many other truth-seekers before you? After all you are spilling the beans man! You've put your head over the parapet and before you lies the cold dark forces of a ruthless machine designed to spit out anyone or anything that would lead to the discovery of this plot. You do agree that these people are capable of anything, don't you? Yet here you are every night being allowed to show the world everything you've got without any fear of recrimination from those who have, according to you, been capable of almost mind boggling gymnastics to remove ANYTHING that may point to the 'truth'. But they just cannot stop Jim, Josephs, and Sandy Larsen. No sir!.

Maybe you're being followed, or your phone is being tapped, or that myself, Greg, Michael, Jeremy, Tracy, et al have been 'sent' here to discredit your efforts as part of some cointelpro operation organised by high placed members of the CIA who know all about H&L and are desperate to extinguish it. It really is doubtful Sandy, you do know this don't you?

Truth is, you will be of no interest to anyone. Because it didn't happen.

These childish excuses to get around the peer reviewed scientific studies that prove conclusively that there was only one historic LHO are now beyond risible. 

I will be proposing that Jim Hargrove is removed from this forum for deliberately, consciously, and wilfully bringing into disrepute. We don't let Fetzer on here for that very reason. We should apply the same ethics with Hargrove as well.

It's not Waterstones you know Jim...

 

Bernie, you are over-the-top and out of line IMO. Sandy has nothing to worry about, he is putting forth and re-presenting the information that Armstrong has already published in his book, "Harvey and Lee". Likewise Jim Hargrove demonstrates a mastery of the information in that book; a mastery of information that is to be admired even if you do not subscribe to a single claim in Armstrong's work. 

You and Walton, and to a lesser extent, Tracy, demonstrate a desperate attempt to detract Armstrong to the point that I don't think that either of you could bear to admit to even the most obvious truths and facts raised in that book. Tracy is the exception in that he is a straight shooter and won't deny the obvious or resort to absurdities and ad-hominems when presented with the strongest of evidence.

Bernie, you have resorted-to, above, an attempt, a desperate and ugly one IMO, to get under the skin and in the head of another member and I think you are the one whose membership here should be questioned.

Walton has derided Armstrongs book as being too expensive and here extols Simplichs book which is free. I don't think he has even read Armstrongs book, and to you, Bernie, I ask... have you read it?

Walton pretty much goes around the forum an kicks down the projects of others who have hurt his feelings in the past. That is a recurring theme for him. He acts out against those who have ignored or poo-pooed his work or those who he believes have snubbed him.

Read the book, bring something to the table, show that you are a straight shooter. Until then you both just sound like disturbed threatened children with an agenda.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Michael Clark

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The FBI, CIA, and Warren Commission  misrepresented and faked plenty of scientific evidence to cover up the coup d'etat that was the JFK assassination. I see no reason why they wouldn't do the same to cover up the fact that Harvey Oswald had not suffered and been treated for mastoiditis. Allowing that to be discovered would have resulted in the discovery of sources and methods used by the the Central Intelligence Agency.

It's all well and good to think that the exhumation was faked, but you have to prove it. I can say that the moon landings were faked, but that doesn't make it a fact. In this case, you have scientific evidence on one side. On the other side you have mistaken witnesses, misread documents and errors in documents. We know those things exist in everyday life. But the faking of scientific evidence of this type would involve a mass conspiracy never before seen. Which  of the following is more likely?

A massive conspiracy faked scientific evidence.

Or the eyewitnesses who thought they saw Oswald somewhere and the documents that seem to show him somewhere he couldn't be are a result of mistakes and misinterpretations?

The latter is far, far more likely.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Bernie Laverick said:

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I see no reason why they wouldn't do the same to cover up the fact that Harvey Oswald had not suffered and been treated for mastoiditis. Allowing that to be discovered would have resulted in the discovery of sources and methods used by the the Central Intelligence Agency.

But you have discovered it, according to you.

Well, John Armstrong did. And whatever it was the CIA did to cover up the lack-of mastoidectomy on Harvey's corpse is making it hard to convince others of that fact.

The CIA has people like you to thank for helping them out. Congratulations.