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

[Jim Hargrove]

14 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

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.

No, I don't think HARVEY Oswald (the DPD LHO) knew about the assassination in advance.  He was set up to be the fall guy.  Had he known about the hit, he probably would have stayed away from the Book Depository that day.  

[Jim Hargrove]

Whether you believe in one Oswald or an operation involving more than one, the case that the young man who “defected” to Russia in 1959 was a U.S. spy is a central issue in Harvey and Lee.  I’ve listed earlier 20 reasons supporting that conclusions and, before that, a short section from Harvey and Lee that demonstrates the laws broken by “Lee HARVEY Oswald” as part of his operation.  I’ll repost that excerpt immediately below.
 

[Jim Hargrove]

23 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

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.

Would anyone like to suggest an innocent explanation as to why Oswald wasn’t prosecuted for these offenses?

[Mathias Baumann]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Would anyone like to suggest an innocent explanation as to why Oswald wasn’t prosecuted for these offenses?

Jim,

I don't think there's any innocent explanation. It's obvious that Oswald was protected by someone very powerful, most likely someone in US intelligence.

I just don't see how that is evidence that there were "two Oswalds". Sure there is evidence that at times he was being impersonated (e.g. Mexico City). But I largely agree with those who think that the evidence for the "Oswald Project" is rather weak. The way I see it Armstrong's theory is mostly based on hearsay and a sometimes questionable interpretation of photographs and clerical errors. The School records are a case in point: no-one here (including me) knows how to interpret them, but everyone is sure that their own personal Interpretation is correct. Unless someone with professional expertice comes forward to explain their exact meaning any further discussion is pointless.

But that's just my personal opinion. I even believe that some pieces of evidence (for instances intriguing discrepancies in Oswald's Marine Corps records) might lead to something substantial. But this is not going to happen on this thread, because it's already gone all haywire. Therefore I suggest it be split into indendepent threads that each deal with one piece of evidence at a time.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Mathias Baumann

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Well the first one is easy-he only gained a few months on early release and the Marine Corps was glad to get rid of him because he was trouble. On the second, I agree he should have been prosecuted, but the fact he wasn't doesn't make him a spy.

[Bernie Laverick]

Why. Was. 'Lee's'. Head. Found. In. 'Harvey's'. Grave?

[Jim Hargrove]

Same. Way. CE399. Was.Found.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

35 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Same. Way. CE399. Was.Found.

Does this mean we're back to Jack White's "head in a box" theory?

[Sandy Larsen]

22 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

On 10/8/2017 at 7:18 PM, 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.

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.

Yes, of course. Because if the exhumation findings weren't faked, then all (or most) the evidence pointing  in that direction must be mistaken. Statistically speaking, the preponderance of evidence indicates that the exhumation findings were faked. One way or another.

 

22 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

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

We have all the evidence that Jim has presented. That is the actual proof.

Perhaps by "actual proof" you mean "direct proof." Maybe that is what is causing your confusion. If so... we have no direct proof. It is all indirect.

BTW, if you turn it around and say the exhumation findings prove that Jim's evidence is wrong, that would also be indirect proof. (Though it would be wrong because the evidence is far greater that the exhumation was faked.)

 

[Sandy Larsen]

21 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

"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.

Jeremy is saying that the Norton Report is to be trusted over the large quantity of contradictory evidence because it is of higher quality.

If so, then he must also accept that the Warren Report is to be trusted over the large quantity of contradictory evidence because it is of higher quality.

Maybe he really is an LNer after all.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

19 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

On 10/8/2017 at 7:54 PM, 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."

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 don't agree with everything in the book either. (Who believes everything in any book?)

Now if Jim had said, "I don't believe much of anything in the book," that would mean something. On the other hand, he said he wishes he could have advised John on the content before the book was published. Does anybody here think that it was Jim's intent to advise John to remove from his book all things regarding two Oswalds? And change the name of the book from "Harvey & Lee" to "Only Lee?"

It is my belief that there are a lot of researchers who believe in the "Oswald Project" as described by John Armstrong, but who remain silent or low key because they don't want to deal with those who don't believe. I think that Jim DiEugenio, for example, probably wants to maintain good relationships with all the authors who contribute to K&K, including John Armstrong and Greg Parker. Understandably so.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

20 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

On 10/8/2017 at 8:22 PM, 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.

Well you would feel that way because you are an LNer. And because you're not a journalist whose career could suffer from your being labeled a conspiracy theorist.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

the School records are a case in point: no-one here (including me) knows how to interpret them

Matthias,

Just because we're not sure of the meaning of the "Re-Ad" number doesn't mean we can't understand the school records. They are easy to understand. Though maybe we need a tutorial for people unaccustomed to reading charts... one explaining how to read the school records.

As for this claim that there are different interpretations of the records, that is simply not the case... at least not for the relevant parts of the records. The anti-H&L crowd wants us to believe they have a different interpretation, but they do not. They just make something up, hoping that people will accept it as an alternate interpretation.

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy still seems to be under the misapprehension that quantity beats quality when it comes to evidence. In the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' corner, we have a steaming pile of weak evidence, all of which has a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation. In the opposite corner, we have (amongst other things) scientific evidence which does not have a reasonable alternative explanation. It really doesn't matter how big the steaming pile of weak evidence is, or how badly it smells. It will still get knocked out by the scientific evidence, for the simple reason that there is no reasonable alternative explanation for the scientific evidence.

Which of the possible alternative explanations for the scientific evidence does Sandy think is the most credible?
- That the scientists, all of them with solid professional reputations, knowingly faked their report?
- That the editors of the scientific journal, all of them equally reputable scientists, knowingly published a false report?
- That some unnamed Bad Guys managed to fake the report, including its photographs, without the knowledge of any of the scientists and other people involved in the exhumation?
- That some unnamed Bad Guys performed an unnecessary mastoidectomy operation on an unnamed boy in the 1940s just on the off-chance that the boy's body might need to be dug up four decades later?
- That some unnamed Bad Guys manipulated the body in Oswald's grave to give it the appearance of having had a mastoidectomy, and did such a good job that the scientists didn't notice?
- That some unnamed aliens from outer space beamed Oswald's body up from his grave and replaced it with a clone?

Which of these explanations does Sandy prefer? And why is there no evidence for any of them?

One of those explanations must be the right one, unless the scientific evidence of a mastoidectomy on the body in Oswald's grave is correct. And if the scientific evidence is correct, the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy was conclusively refuted two decades before it was even published.

Now Sandy claims that "the Warren Report is to be trusted over the large quantity of contradictory evidence because it is of higher quality". Really? What makes Sandy think that the Warren Report is "of higher quality" than the evidence which contradicts its main findings?

I'm sure that Sandy isn't really a lone nutter, even though that is the implication in his statement. I'm sure he understands how far-fetched and poorly supported 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy is. I suspect that in private he regrets having publicly promoted the fantasy, and that he makes unfounded accusations to avoid having to back down in public. I'm sure that, like most readers of this thread, he understands why that fantasy is opposed by rational critics of the lone-nut theory.

[Bernie Laverick]

11 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Same. Way. CE399. Was.Found.

Ha ha ha!!! That's it then? That's all you have? The entire H&L charade pivots entirely on your ability to give a plausible explanation along with DIRECT evidence to back it up how 'Lee's' head and body were found in 'Harvey's' grave...and that's all you can muster? Seriously?

 

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yes, of course. Because if the exhumation findings weren't faked, then all (or most) the evidence pointing  in that direction must be mistaken. Statistically speaking, the preponderance of evidence indicates that the exhumation findings were faked. One way or another.

 

We have all the evidence that Jim has presented. That is the actual proof.

Perhaps by "actual proof" you mean "direct proof." Maybe that is what is causing your confusion. If so... we have no direct proof. It is all indirect.

BTW, if you turn it around and say the exhumation findings prove that Jim's evidence is wrong, that would also be indirect proof. (Though it would be wrong because the evidence is far greater that the exhumation was faked.)

 

So there we have it. It was faked because the other 'evidence' is so "overwhelming". Circular thinking of the scariest order. So there is no "direct" proof of this. The only "indirect proof" is that it doesn't fit into the narrative you believe in - in fact, it thoroughly demolishes it -  so that leaves only one alternative. It's faked! Don't you think that's a tad arrogant?

The one piece of this fantasy that can, and has been, subject to a peer reviewed study published in a reputable journal confirms the medical record and proved conclusively that LHO (the person exhumed; not Harvey!) had had a mastoid operation as a boy.

To all reasonable people that now totally demolishes the H&L narrative unless you can provide COMPELLING proof that this was in some way faked. But YOU must show this. Saying it must be faked because that means everything else you have been promoting as an uber-complex plot falls apart is, characteristically, thoroughly dishonest.

If that body was LHO, which it was, it proves conclusively that all the other anomalies have a perfectly understandable explanation. An explanation that this exhumation makes redundant. Who cares that the school records are confusing or that there's one photo of sloping shoulders etc..? Clearly this body belongs to the one and only LHO, and is, to be sure, as dead as Armstrong's theory.

Are we done now?

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by Bernie Laverick