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

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

4 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.

You wouldn't need to prove that the moon landings were faked. For example, if you proved that nothing was left behind on the moon, that would prove the landings were faked. That's called an "indirect proof."

The preponderance of evidence shows that government agencies covered up the lack-of-mastoidectomy on Harvey's corpse.

 

Edited October 8, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Bernie Laverick]

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

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.

Let's say that one day Oswald can be definitively proved to have been on the front steps during the assassination; it therefore means that all the other 'evidence' against him is wrong. If a LN accepts that he was on those steps he cannot then say, "But I still think all the other evidence condemns him". If he is definitely on the steps the other evidence against him is just wrong, plain and simple.

Likewise, if 'Lee's' skull is found on Harvey's body after an exhumation, then the entire narrative of H&L is therefore wrong and all the other evidence melts into the dust. I know that's sad, and that this tingling feeling you all get being the sole discoverers of this gigantic plot is fading by the minute as the absurdity is revealed with every ludicrous off the wall answer.

I've been a member of this forum for over 12 years. I've seen some great threads. There's been some fantastic work done on here. But always, at any time during this period, there has always been the deliberate spoilers; those whose sole intent is to distract and bog down more honest researchers. I believe that the whole H&L charade is just an elaborate hoax designed to discredit the JFK assassination community, and thereby strengthen the official narrative. 

But Michael, I know what you mean when you deride those who "resort to absurdities and ad-hominems" and then finish with calling us..."disturbed threatened children". Nice.

"...when presented with the strongest of evidence". So how do you explain how 'Lee's' head was found on what should have been 'Harvey's' body? Which do you think constitutes the "strongest evidence" of the following scenarios, all of which have been robustly promoted as being the obvious explanation?

Explanation 1 - 'Harvey' had the exact same mastoid operation by an unknown surgeon in an unknown hospital so that the two boys' skulls would match up should one have to be dug up many years later. (Now abandoned)

Explanation 2 - 'Harvey' had the exact same mastoid operation but performed after he had died despite evidence of natural healing occurring... (Now abandoned)

Explanation 3 - The exhumation and the subsequent examination were all faked and though there was no scar whatsoever the scientists were coerced or tortured into faking the entire findings to make 'Harvey's' skull consistent with 'Lee's'.

We are now left with option 3.

So Michael, what is the "strongest of evidence" for that to have taken place? Is there ANY evidence at all for that scenario? None?

Yet you implore ME to "bring something to the table"!! 

The onus is not mine. I haven't made a ludicrous claim. If I did, the onus would be on me to back it up with facts and evidence. If I didn't have those facts or that evidence, or if all I had when faced with definitive proof that my claim is nonsense was, "it was probably faked", I feel sure you would have little respect. If I did it ad nauseam and had done so year after year and still didn't provide evidence of how it was faked or any other facts to demonstrate this you would soon believe that I had a negative agenda. 

I'm sick of these snake oil salesmen effectively leaving a trail of mucous over the brilliant research some members of this forum have achieved. It lessens their work and has become a bigger obstacle towards reaching some judicial conclusion than anything DVP and his ilk could do. 

As for trying to get inside another member's head. That's desperate. It was a way to demonstrate that for all this super elaborate plot to work we have to believe that they would be prepared to do one of the above to achieve it. And much much more. The H&L guys say they that this secret is so sacrosanct, so top secret and sensitive that they will never allow the truth to emerge.

And yet...it has! Apparently...

Why haven't they been stopped?

 

 

[Bernie Laverick]

53 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You wouldn't need to prove that the moon landings were faked. For example, if you proved that nothing was left behind on the moon, that would prove the landings were faked. That's called an "indirect proof."

The preponderance of evidence shows that government agencies covered up the lack-of-mastoidectomy on Harvey's corpse.

 

Sandy you can't just keep saying a preponderance of evidence and steadfastly refuse to provide even ONE piece of it.  If you have I'd tell Jim, because he definitely has NO evidence to show how the mastoidectomy was faked. And neither have you. You have ZERO evidence. So why say it exists? Are you really that desperate?

It's this kind of out and out sneakiness that reduces the stock of this forum. To deliberately mislead in such a blatant manner like this is bang out of order!

Show us the "preponderance of evidence" then. Where is it? 

[Michael Clark]

4 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Let's say that one day Oswald can be definitively proved to have been on the front steps during the assassination; it therefore means that all the other 'evidence' against him is wrong. If a LN accepts that he was on those steps he cannot then say, "But I still think all the other evidence condemns him". If he is definitely on the steps the other evidence against him is just wrong, plain and simple.

Likewise, if 'Lee's' skull is found on Harvey's body after an exhumation, then the entire narrative of H&L is therefore wrong and all the other evidence melts into the dust. I know that's sad, and that this tingling feeling you all get being the sole discoverers of this gigantic plot is fading by the minute as the absurdity is revealed with every ludicrous off the wall answer.

I've been a member of this forum for over 12 years. I've seen some great threads. There's been some fantastic work done on here. But always, at any time during this period, there has always been the deliberate spoilers; those whose sole intent is to distract and bog down more honest researchers. I believe that the whole H&L charade is just an elaborate hoax designed to discredit the JFK assassination community, and thereby strengthen the official narrative. 

But Michael, I know what you mean when you deride those who "resort to absurdities and ad-hominems" and then finish with calling us..."disturbed threatened children". Nice.

"...when presented with the strongest of evidence". So how do you explain how 'Lee's' head was found on what should have been 'Harvey's' body? Which do you think constitutes the "strongest evidence" of the following scenarios, all of which have been robustly promoted as being the obvious explanation?

Explanation 1 - 'Harvey' had the exact same mastoid operation by an unknown surgeon in an unknown hospital so that the two boys' skulls would match up should one have to be dug up many years later. (Now abandoned)

Explanation 2 - 'Harvey' had the exact same mastoid operation but performed after he had died despite evidence of natural healing occurring... (Now abandoned)

Explanation 3 - The exhumation and the subsequent examination were all faked and though there was no scar whatsoever the scientists were coerced or tortured into faking the entire findings to make 'Harvey's' skull consistent with 'Lee's'.

We are now left with option 3.

So Michael, what is the "strongest of evidence" for that to have taken place? Is there ANY evidence at all for that scenario? None?

Yet you implore ME to "bring something to the table"!! 

The onus is not mine. I haven't made a ludicrous claim. If I did, the onus would be on me to back it up with facts and evidence. If I didn't have those facts or that evidence, or if all I had when faced with definitive proof that my claim is nonsense was, "it was probably faked", I feel sure you would have little respect. If I did it ad nauseam and had done so year after year and still didn't provide evidence of how it was faked or any other facts to demonstrate this you would soon believe that I had a negative agenda. 

I'm sick of these snake oil salesmen effectively leaving a trail of mucous over the brilliant research some members of this forum have achieved. It lessens their work and has become a bigger obstacle towards reaching some judicial conclusion than anything DVP and his ilk could do. 

As for trying to get inside another member's head. That's desperate. It was a way to demonstrate that for all this super elaborate plot to work we have to believe that they would be prepared to do one of the above to achieve it. And much much more. The H&L guys say they that this secret is so sacrosanct, so top secret and sensitive that they will never allow the truth to emerge.

And yet...it has! Apparently...

Why haven't they been stopped?

 

 

Have you read the book?

I haven't. I have read enough of other works to firmly believe that their was an imposter operation working with the intent of placing the DPD LHO here and there in the months leading up to the assassination. I assume that Armstrong came to the same conclusion and studied that angle to the ends of the Earth. When one studies, in such a focused way, something like that, they are sure to come to some conclusions that no one else is going to get their head araound, unless they studied it in a similar fashion, Like Jim Hargrove has.

If you haven't read the book, and demonstrated some readiness to accept this that or the other thing, then your tossing-out the whole kit-and-kiboodle is meaningless, IMO. For me, I am convinced of the imposter, and If I felt the need to get to the bottom of that, then I would start with H&L.

I am absolutely convinced that LHO did not shoot JFK, so, for me, the Prayer Man issue or the Second floor encounter, or other minutiae is a waste of my time; unless it was my specific goal to convince others, and that is not the case.

It has been my goal to put pieces together that tell the story of what happened, for my own consumption. 

I appreciate the work of guys like Armstrong and the Prayer Person folks, and I hope they get traction. But, it does not suit my need, I already believe that LHO didn't do it, and he had a doppelgänger working around him.

[Michael Walton]

Oh no, Mike Clark is back on here.  This is the guy who came up with a theory on EF a while back.  His theory went something like this:

A telecom company took over the building that used to house Ruby's nightclub. During renovations on it and because there was something like a lot of copper wiring in it, his theory was - of course! Deep in the bowels of Ruby's nightclub building was assassination central.  They had a bevy of secret agents monitoring live TV cameras stationed throughout the city being displayed on TVs and were controlling all events, including the shooting.  Down in that smoke-filled assassination central room were Dulles, Bush, Nixon, Hunt and others gleefully rubbing their hands together as the killing took place. He based this theory on the large amount of copper wiring found in the building.

This is all you need to know about Mike Clark's way of thinking. This is his only attempt on EF to ever come up with a theory and it was a doozy.  Otherwise, because he believes everything was faked in the JFK case, he'll swoop down from time to time, saying his usual bits of "Great goings" to fellow everything is faked believers, while admonishing those who know better.

------

As Sandy said above, the secret agents faked A LOT of stuff. Emphasis on A LOT. To the HL supporters they think EVERYTHING was faked. It was not. Further, there has to be plausibility, a ring of truth if you will.  I was just watching a crime show about a murder. The investigators, even the family of the victim, said numerous times throughout the course of the show that the accused was saying and doing things that "didn't make sense" as he tried to explain his alibi.

This is what I mean. Sandy will probably say "just because Simpich says so doesn't make it so" but in addition to that there has to be a running narrative of does it have the ring of truth. But Bill Simpich's outstanding SS story has a heck of a lot more ring of truth to it than the HL story.  The very fact that HL supporters would actually think that the secret agents would perform a mastoid operation on their clone years before Dallas, then change this scenario to it was done to a skull in a coffin to fit a round peg in a square hole would cause laughter by any seasoned crime investigator.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Michael Walton

[Jim Hargrove]

9 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Have you read the book?

I haven't. I have read enough of other works to firmly believe that their was an imposter operation working with the intent of placing the DPD LHO here and there in the months leading up to the assassination. I assume that Armstrong came to the same conclusion and studied that angle to the ends of the Earth. When one studies, in such a focused way, something like that, they are sure to come to some conclusions that no one else is going to get their head araound, unless they studied it in a similar fashion, Like Jim Hargrove has.

If you haven't read the book, and demonstrated some readiness to accept this that or the other thing, then your tossing-out the whole kit-and-kiboodle is meaningless, IMO. For me, I am convinced of the imposter, and If I felt the need to get to the bottom of that, then I would start with H&L.

I am absolutely convinced that LHO did not shoot JFK, so, for me, the Prayer Man issue or the Second floor encounter, or other minutiae is a waste of my time; unless it was my specific goal to convince others, and that is not the case.

It has been my goal to put pieces together that tell the story of what happened, for my own consumption. 

I appreciate the work of guys like Armstrong and the Prayer Person folks, and I hope they get traction. But, it does not suit my need, I already believe that LHO didn't do it, and he had a doppelgänger working around him.

Thank you, Michael!

LHO sure had a doppelgänger working around him in 1963! And LHO didn't kill JFK, right?  Everyone here knows that.  LHO was a patsy, right?

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

19 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You wouldn't need to prove that the moon landings were faked. For example, if you proved that nothing was left behind on the moon, that would prove the landings were faked. That's called an "indirect proof."

The preponderance of evidence shows that government agencies covered up the lack-of-mastoidectomy on Harvey's corpse.

 

Sandy you can't just keep saying a preponderance of evidence and steadfastly refuse to provide even ONE piece of it. 

Bernie,

If you read my "preponderance of evidence" statement in the context of my prior paragraph, you''ll hopefully understand that Jim has been providing the evidence for it in abundance.

Hint:  Evidence comes in two flavors... direct and indirect."

If you still don't get it, try this:

"The preponderance of evidence -- most of which is indirect -- shows that government agencies covered up the lack-of-mastoidectomy on Harvey's corpse."

 

[Michael Clark]

9 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Thank you, Michael!

LHO sure had a doppelgänger working around him in 1963! And LHO didn't kill JFK, right?  Everyone here knows that.  LHO was a patsy, right?

 

 

If Patsy means that the DPD LHO was a willing, knowledgeable participant in the plot to kill JFK, and then sacrificed, I do not believe that to a certainty. Again, I don't need to get to the bottom of that to achieve my goal. I definitely believe he was set up, but how much he knew, and as to how involved he was, I am not certain.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Michael Clark

[W. Tracy Parnell]

10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

"The preponderance of evidence -- most of which is indirect -- shows that government agencies covered up the lack-of-mastoidectomy on Harvey's corpse."

Once again, I can only suggest that you take your theory to someone in authority such as an investigative journalist. But the problem is you don't have a theory regarding the mastoid operation. You think it was faked because of the "preponderance of evidence" supporting the H&L theory. But when you show that evidence to the investigative journalist and they compare it to the Norton Report and the other scientific and common sense evidence, you and I know what will happen. That is why H&L can only exist within the universe of the EF and like places that will tolerate it. Not sure why they still do though at this late date. H&L had a brief heyday in the late nineties but most abandoned it after they saw the book.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 minute ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

H&L had a brief heyday in the late nineties but most abandoned it after they saw the book.

I don't believe that is true, Tracy. I've seen a number of respected researchers/authors make comments indicating they believe Armstrong is fundamentally correct. His book is cited by numerous authors on Jim DiEugenio's website, Kennedys and King.

46 articles on Jim DiEugenio's website Kennedys and King that cite John Armstrong's book, Harvey & Lee.

13 more such articles that use the ampersand (&) symbol instead of the word "and."

 

[Sandy Larsen]

38 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

54 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

"The preponderance of evidence -- most of which is indirect -- shows that government agencies covered up the lack-of-mastoidectomy on Harvey's corpse."

Once again, I can only suggest that you take your theory to someone in authority such as an investigative journalist.

 

.... who wouldn't touch it because of concerns over their career. Same problem faced by Warren Commission critics.

Bill O'Reilly was a CTer till he became famous. Now he has something to lose.

 

[Bernie Laverick]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Bernie,

If you read my "preponderance of evidence" statement in the context of my prior paragraph, you''ll hopefully understand that Jim has been providing the evidence for it in abundance.

Hint:  Evidence comes in two flavors... direct and indirect."

If you still don't get it, try this:

"The preponderance of evidence -- most of which is indirect -- shows that government agencies covered up the lack-of-mastoidectomy on Harvey's corpse."

 

Ah, I see, how scientific of you! So because you believe all the other 'evidence' to be true then it stands to scientific reason that the exhumation findings must have been faked. Great logic!

It must have been or how explain all the rest? 

But what actual proof do you have that it was faked?

NOTHING!!!

The only indirect evidence you have is your belief in a fantasy tale whereby anything that doesn't fit...must have been faked.

That's it! That's all you've got.

I'm actually going red with embarrassment for you...

 

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

"Preponderance of evidence" indeed! That's just a dishonest way of claiming that when it comes to evidence, quantity beats quality. But it's the other way round: quality beats quantity. Strong evidence beats weak evidence, no matter how much of it there is.

Every single piece of evidence which has been put forward to support the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy is weak. What makes the evidence weak is the fact that perfectly reasonable alternative explanations exist for that evidence. Human memory is fallible, people make mistakes when filling in forms, the same person's appearance in photographs can change over time and in different lighting conditions, and so on.

There are even perfectly reasonable alternative explanations for the claims that Oswald was impersonated and that he was a CIA operative. Neither of those claims require him to have been part of a ridiculously unlikely long-term doppelganger project.

Against this weak evidence is a report by reputable scientists, published in a reputable scientific journal, which shows that the body in Oswald's grave had undergone a mastoidectomy operation, contradicting 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' doctrine which claims that the body cannot have undergone such an operation.

Unless anyone can produce some unimpeachable documentation which shows conclusively that the scientists' report was false, or that the body in the grave had been tampered with, that's the end of the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy.

Here are some questions for the 'Harvey and Lee' cult members:

- Do you accept the basic principle that strong evidence beats weak evidence? If not, why not?

- If you still don't accept the scientists' report, what is your preferred explanation for it? There has been quite a bit of indecisive squirming on this topic, with suggestions that a fictional six-year-old clone was operated on decades before the exhumation, or perhaps he wasn't and the scientists faked their report, or perhaps they didn't and some unidentified Bad Guys faked it instead. It would be nice if each of the cult members would state clearly, for the record, exactly why the scientists' report can't be trusted, if that's what they believe.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't believe that is true, Tracy. I've seen a number of respected researchers/authors make comments indicating they believe Armstrong is fundamentally correct. His book is cited by numerous authors on Jim DiEugenio's website, Kennedys and King.

46 articles on Jim DiEugenio's website Kennedys and King that cite John Armstrong's book, Harvey & Lee.

13 more such articles that use the ampersand (&) symbol instead of the word "and."

 

But if you look at the links you provided, they are citing Armstrong's research to make their own points rather than professing a belief in the theory as a whole. As for DiEugenio himself the following quote sums up his opinion of the book:

"I don't agree with everything in the book. And I wish John had let me look at it first." (Jim DiEugenio, "re Harvey and Lee", Deep Politics Forum, 03/03/14 Page 1). 

I have found many in the CT community who disagree with Armstrong and I can provide more examples if you wish.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

.... who wouldn't touch it because of concerns over their career. Same problem faced by Warren Commission critics.

Bill O'Reilly was a CTer till he became famous. Now he has something to lose.

 

I find that to be a convenient excuse. If I really felt I had solved the JFK case, wild horses couldn't stop me from bringing the information to those in power who could really do something about it.