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

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Speaking of mountains of evidence:

• Evidence of a 5’ 11” Marine who becomes a 5’ 9” cadaver on a slab in the Dallas morgue.
• Evidence of a fellow who is arrested both on the main floor and the balcony of the Texas Theater.
• Evidence of a man who does and doesn’t have a valid Texas driver’s license.
• Evidence of a man who isn’t recognized by his own half-brother. 
• Evidence of a man whose Social Security records don’t reflect teen-aged employment income supposedly included on his federal tax returns.
• Evidence of a man who appeared at the Bolton Ford dealership in New Orleans at the same time he was in the Soviet Union.
• Evidence of a man who worked with anti-Castro Cubans in Miami and the Florida Everglades at the same time he was in the Soviet Union.
• Evidence of a man who was treated for VD at a Marine hospital in Japan at the same time he was on the high seas and in Formosa.
• Evidence of a man who attended school simultaneously in New York City and New Orleans, and, oh yeah....
• Evidence of a man who lost or broke a front tooth in a school fight yet had the tooth magically reappear in his exhumation photos, and so on....

You have been provided with alternative explanations over and over again and you simply refuse to accept them. And don't bother asking me to provide them, they have been provided continually on this forum dating back to 2015. But these discussions serve a purpose for you. They provide attention and a chance to get new converts such as Sandy.

 

I came to accept the theory because the evidence Jim provided was solid, while the arguments (alternative explanations) refuting it were mostly weak or non-existent.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jim,

The funny things is that Tracy and the others have no choice but to accept all those impossibilities as facts.

We, on the other hand, explain them all with one simple explanation... there were two Oswalds.

One Oswald = Numerous Impossibiities
Two Oswalds = No Impossibilities

 

 

 

As I have tried to explain, in any collection of data or evidence you will find things that do not fit. In a case in New York, over 2000 people "saw" 2 escaped convicts where they could not have been. That didn't prove they were there, it proves people will say anything for various reasons. Jim lists 10 things that "prove" 2 Oswalds. But it would be surprising if you didn't find that many anomalies out of the millions of pieces of Information in this case.

 

Yeah, I'm sure most of us have school records indicating that we attended two schools simultaneously, and several other records indicating we were in two places at once. Etc., etc., etc.

 

[Bernie Laverick]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Well Bernie, if you ever come across some of those devastating arguments that tipped the scales for you against Harvey & Lee, I hope you will share them with us. Because so far I haven't seen any of that. Just a bunch of yap yap yap is what I've seen for the most part.

 

Tell you what Sandy, here's an exercise for you. If you take the confrontational shield down for a few minutes, and write yourself a list of all the mistakes that Armstrong may have made, in your opinion. He wrote a thousand pages and we have all written a hundred times more than that over the years. So tell me, with the benefit of hindsight what bits did he, or any of his main supporters, get wrong? You'd agree that only a tortured genius along the lines of Einstein could write a 1,000 pages of such complexity and not make even ONE mistake?

I've asked this before, many times, and no one ever answers it. We have to assume therefore that you all believe Armstrong's work is 100% perfect with not a chink in its armour. If not, then which bits do you think he got wrong? Real simple question.

Also could you make another list of all the NEW developments, those found since the publication of H&L, like new finds, witnesses, documents etc... that further back the story up?

Because there was so obviously a plot and a cover up in the Kennedy assassination even now bits of new information are still +adding to our understanding of it. Those who believe in a plot to kill Kennedy are not just relying on a static piece of work written 20 odd years ago, but building their knowledge and changing narrative as new insights and developments come to light. Because there really was a plot, these insights and new developments will keep on flowing.

But you have added absolutely NOTHING to the H&L story. NOTHING! Everything is taken from the holy book. You have found zero information since the publication of H&L that further develops its narrative. For instance...

What effort has gone into tracking down 'Lee's' whereabouts since the assassination? 

What effort has gone into tracking down 'Marguerite's' whereabouts since the assassination?

Wouldn't there be something somewhere that even hinted at their existence since the assassination? Have any of you looked? If so, what were the results of such effort?

What effort has gone into corroborating the Hungarian refugee story? If so, what are the results of such effort?

Have any of you made a special effort to corroborate the missing tooth story? Surely there must have been someone else who knew of this. If you found them you will have added a brick of credibility to your argument. So why aren't you even looking? And if you have looked, what were the results of such a search?

Or are we saying that what Armstrong found 20 odd years ago is absolutely 100% of what is available to find - so there's no point looking for anything further? Everything else has all been destroyed except for what Armstrong found? Really?

So what have you got that's new?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I have no doubt that it was well known among Lee's teacher and classmates. Even Ed Voebel.

I don't know why you think that word would get back to us. Most of Lee's classmates didn't testify for the WC.

 

When Voebel told the story to the WC, why didn't he say, "and BTW I know for a fact he had missing teeth from that incident?" Instead he made the qualified statement that he thought he had a missing tooth.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

29 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yeah, I'm sure most of us have school records indicating that we attended two schools simultaneously, and several other records indicating we were in two places at once. Etc., etc., etc.

 

If someone was intent on proving a "double Sandy Larsen" theory, you could very well have records that could seem to lend credence to their ideas. Of course, nobody is pursuing such a theory concerning you so we'll never know (no jokes for Sandy's sake please :)). 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

12 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

But you have added absolutely NOTHING to the H&L story. NOTHING! Everything is taken from the holy book. You have found zero information since the publication of H&L that further develops its narrative. For instance...

Well, you are partly wrong Bernie . We have Sandy's word that he is taking all of this "evidence" to an investigative journalist. I'll be waiting for a report on that.  

Edited October 21, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Bernie Laverick]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Ever hear of false teeth, Bernie?

We talked about this pages ago. You're way behind.

 

Erm, I think they may have noticed that at the autopsy. Because surely if they have replicated 'Lee's' mastoid status on 'Harvey'  then they would have replicated his dental status too?? Surely? Why wouldn't they do that?

Was there any evidence that one of those teeth were false? No. This means that even if you are right about H&L, you are totally wrong on the missing tooth. Had it been the case they would have replicated it on 'Harvey' like they did the mastoid! So even if it is 'Harvey', where is his false tooth to match 'lee's'?

Whether this totally disproves H&L is mute. But it absolutely proves that LHO did NOT lose a tooth.

How can you not see this?

Because you are all totally blind to alternatives that don't fit the cult leader's holy word.

Think for yourselves!

[Jim Hargrove]

14 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Erm, I think they may have noticed that at the autopsy. Because surely if they have replicated 'Lee's' mastoid status on 'Harvey'  then they would have replicated his dental status too?? Surely? Why wouldn't they do that?

Good grief!  A false front tooth wasn't faked because Harvey Oswald (the guy killed by Ruby) didn't have one.  I think the mastoid scar was really there.

[Jim Hargrove]

In a radio interview from the 1980s, Harold Wesiberg (author of Whitewash and other books) recalled hearing, in 1965, from a caller to a radio station claiming to be a Marine veteran who knew a second Oswald in the USMC. The caller then came into the station and talked at length.  Harold gets into the story about 32 seconds into the recording below.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

 

In an old interview with Bill O'Reilly, Frank Sturgis said he knew there were two Oswalds.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Tell you what Sandy, here's an exercise for you. If you take the confrontational shield down for a few minutes, and write yourself a list of all the mistakes that Armstrong may have made, in your opinion. He wrote a thousand pages and we have all written a hundred times more than that over the years. So tell me, with the benefit of hindsight what bits did he, or any of his main supporters, get wrong? You'd agree that only a tortured genius along the lines of Einstein could write a 1,000 pages of such complexity and not make even ONE mistake?

I've asked this before, many times, and no one ever answers it. We have to assume therefore that you all believe Armstrong's work is 100% perfect with not a chink in its armour. If not, then which bits do you think he got wrong? Real simple question.

That's a simple question to ask, but would certainly be hard to answer very definitively unless one were to retrace Armstrong's steps.

I know there are a few minor things I disagree with, because I recall thinking that I disagreed. Unfortunately I cannot remember specifically what those things were. If the right topic were to come up, I would recall how I disagree. But I can't do so off the cuff.

However, I should point out that I have barely scratched the Harvey and Lee research surface. I've read only isolated parts of the book. There is so much information that I'm making timelines so I can make sense of it.

 

6 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Also could you make another list of all the NEW developments, those found since the publication of H&L, like new finds, witnesses, documents etc... that further back the story up?

Because there was so obviously a plot and a cover up in the Kennedy assassination even now bits of new information are still +adding to our understanding of it. Those who believe in a plot to kill Kennedy are not just relying on a static piece of work written 20 odd years ago, but building their knowledge and changing narrative as new insights and developments come to light. Because there really was a plot, these insights and new developments will keep on flowing.

There's a lot more to work with on the JFK assassination compared to Harvey & Lee. There are tens of thousands of released documents that are still being gone over with a fine tooth comb. And new analyses made. Even amateurs like myself can find new, significant things. For example, Thomas Graves and I discovered where Gloria Calvery was before and right after the assassination. (The work of others like Chris Davidson was instrumental in what we found.) Because of this we could compare the affidavits and WC testimonies of Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley with what we could see on film. We were able to prove that they both lied in their WC testimonies. Their first-day affidavits, on the other hand, appeared to be true as far as we could tell.

Compare those FBI document to the ones related to Harvey & Lee. The FBI, of course, did not investigate the Harvey & Lee angle. Anything they did discover, they tried reconciling so that it described only one Oswald. Inevitably they overlooked a few things, like the semester where Oswald attended two schools. Armstrong has found most of those relevant documents, I'm sure. Unlike with the JFK assassination, there aren't thousands of FBI document to scour. Most of the H&L research had to be done by an Oswald researcher, and it was Armstrong who did it.

Time is ticking and there is very little more research that can be done for Harvey & Lee. Witnesses are dead, or old and dying. Memories are failing. The JFK assassination, on the other hand,  has already been researched and documented. Those documents will continue to be read and analyzed for many years to come.

 

Quote

But you have added absolutely NOTHING to the H&L story. NOTHING! Everything is taken from the holy book. You have found zero information since the publication of H&L that further develops its narrative. For instance...

 

You're right, I've found nothing new. There have been a time or two I thought I found something new, but no... afterward I found it was already in Armstrong's book.

Oh wait... I actually did add a little bit. Chris Newton and I discovered that the "Minsk photo" on Oswald's DoD card has a white semicircular area used for ID photos in Russia and other European countries, and that the so called "postal stamp" on it was actually put there (probably by Harvey) in order to camouflage an old security stamp in the white area. And that Richard Case Nagell got a photocopy of that, removed the "postal stamp," and camouflaged the old security stamp by drawing a suit coat over Oswald's shirt. I discovered that the "Minsk photo" is really a composite of Harvey and Lee, and so that photo must have been taken to Russia by Harvey. I later discovered that Armstrong had already found the photo to be a composite of Harvey and Lee. There's a whole lot more to this story. Chris did most the research work and we both did analysis.

So yeah, I have added some. Not a lot. There might be other small things I've added.

 

Quote

What effort has gone into tracking down 'Lee's' whereabouts since the assassination? 

What effort has gone into tracking down 'Marguerite's' whereabouts since the assassination?

 

I don't know. But apparently nothing has been found.

 

Quote

Wouldn't there be something somewhere that even hinted at their existence since the assassination? Have any of you looked? If so, what were the results of such effort?

Bernie, I'm just an amateur investigator. The only investigating I do is look for clues in documents. I don't interview anybody, look for anybody, or even call anybody. I don't have the resources, time, energy, or desire to be a real researcher.

(I am an analysis guy, though.)

It doesn't matter much to me how Lee and Marguerite disappeared. It would be nice to know what happened to them, but it's not something that is necessary. Obviously they did disappear. Maybe they were placed in some sort of witness protection program. I don't know.

 

Quote

What effort has gone into corroborating the Hungarian refugee story? If so, what are the results of such effort?

 

Armstrong had only a couple names to work with, and he did attempt to find them. He writes about his search in his book. He couldn't find one at all, and found too many of the other. (Multiple men with the same name.) One of those seem to fit the bill, but he's not certain.

I don't think there is any more that can be done on this. Same thing looking for Lee and Marguerite.

 

Quote

Have any of you made a special effort to corroborate the missing tooth story? Surely there must have been someone else who knew of this. If you found them you will have added a brick of credibility to your argument. So why aren't you even looking? And if you have looked, what were the results of such a search?

Even if I were a real investigator, I wouldn't waste my time on that angle. That was 65 years ago! Who would remember a tooth incident that far in the past? Even Ed Voebel was uncertain and that was 54 years years ago.

 

Quote

Or are we saying that what Armstrong found 20 odd years ago is absolutely 100% of what is available to find - so there's no point looking for anything further? Everything else has all been destroyed except for what Armstrong found? Really?

I'm sure there is more that can be found. But Armstrong didn't leave much, it seems.

 

Quote

So what have you got that's new?

 

Edited October 22, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I have no doubt that it was well known among Lee's teacher and classmates. Even Ed Voebel.

I don't know why you think that word would get back to us. Most of Lee's classmates didn't testify for the WC.

 

When Voebel told the story to the WC, why didn't he say, "and BTW I know for a fact he had missing teeth from that incident?" Instead he made the qualified statement that he thought he had a missing tooth.

Because he wasn't sure. It had happened a long time ago.

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim writes:

<blockquote>Perhaps Mr. Bojczuk can tell us how "Lee Harvey Oswald's" front tooth regrew in his grave!</blockquote>

For the umpteenth time, his front tooth did not need to regrow, because it was never knocked out.

According to the cult's respected former member, Jack 'the moon landings were faked' White, the fictional character, 'Lee', had a full set of front teeth when he was in Japan in 1958. According to cult doctrine, the other fictional character, 'Harvey', also had a full set of front teeth. According to a report by several respected scientists, the exhumed body of the real, historical Lee Harvey Oswald also had a full set of front teeth. The medical records of the real, historical Lee Harvey Oswald do not mention a missing tooth or a false tooth.

So much for the 'missing tooth' nonsense. There was no missing tooth.

Now let's get back to the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave, which disproves the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory. Unless it can be shown that the defect was faked, the theory is dead.

Perhaps the cult members could begin by putting their heads together and agreeing on exactly when and where and how they think the mastoidectomy defect on the body in the grave was faked. Jim speculated that it was done in 1952 or 1953 by an unknown surgeon in a hospital that hadn't been built yet, but he has so far been unable to produce any documentary evidence to support this piece of speculation. Sandy speculated that it was done at around the time of the exhumation in 1981, but he wasn't sure if it was the body that was faked or the scientists' report that was faked, and he too has been unable to produce any evidence to support his speculation. Jack 'the moon landings were faked' White probably thought it was little green men who did it. James Norwood doesn't seem to have offered an opinion on the matter before he went missing when challenged to a debate:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1573-invitation-to-dr-norwood

Let's see if we can prise some straight answers from our remaining cult members:

- Was the body in the grave surgically altered? If so, when and where was this done? Back in the 1950s in a non-existent hospital in New York? In 1981 in Texas, shortly before the body was exhumed, surrounded by dozens of witnesses? Or in 1981 in Texas, shortly after the body was exhumed, surrounded by dozens of witnesses?

- Was the scientists' report faked? Was the scientists' photograph of the mastoidectomy defect faked? If either or both of these were faked, were the scientists aware that the documents were faked?

Now for the hard part: show us the evidence!

Edited October 22, 2017 by Jeremy Bojczuk
corrected a typo

[Jim Hargrove]

Excerpts from Ed Vobel’s WC testimony (emphasis added) ….

• Yes. Well, I think one of them was in the same grade as Lee.
• The fight, I think started on the school ground,
• I think John was a little smaller, a little shorter than Lee.
• Well, I think Oswald was getting the best of John,
• but I think I just went on home and everybody went their way,
• and Oswald I think, was a little in front of me
• I think that was what brought it all about. I think this was sort of a revenge thing on the part of the Neumeyer boys
• I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out.
• I don't think he was that good
• I don't think he was a great pool player
• I think I met her one time
• I think the legal age here is 18
• I think in a way I understood him better than most of the other kids
• I think they have gotten worse
• I think we were in the same grade, I think we were.

 .... and on and on. Ed Voegel says “I think” or “think” nearly a hundred times during his testimony. It seems to be part of the way he talked.

[Jim Hargrove]

18 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

For the umpteenth time, his front tooth did not need to regrow, because it was never knocked out.

Oh, Really?

On 10/16/2017 at 7:46 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

To my H&L critic friends....

Sworn WC testimony referring way back to the fall of 1954....

Mr. JENNER. But you do remember that you attempted to help him when he was struck in the mouth on that occasion; is that right?
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out.

Soon after the fight, Voebel took a famous photograph of LEE Oswald that he eventually sold to LIFE magazine after the assassination.  It appears to show LEE Oswald with a missing tooth.

Here’s a quick guide to “Oswald’s Lost Front Tooth” for vision impaired H&L critics.  This will help you see LEE Oswald’s missing front tooth even if you’re nearly blind.

First, get yourself a copy of the February 21, 1964 edition of LIFE magazine.  You can borrow mine if you can’t find one.  Here’s a picture of the cover I took with my cell phone.

Second, and this may be a difficult part for you, open up LIFE magazine to pages 70 and 71.  Here is what you will see....

Third, get your nose close to pages 70 & 71 and look towards the left side of the big two-page spread.  Despite your obvious disabilities, you should see something like this….

Here’s a closer look at that missing upper front tooth:

I'll post a brightened version of the same LIFE halftone from the late, great Jack White in a couple of days....

In the meantime, H&L critics, can you find the missing tooth in “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” original exhumation dental photos, currently in the possession of John Armstrong?

I didn’t think so. Here’s an LHO exhumation dental photo….

 

WHERE IS THE MISSING FRONT TOOTH?