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

[Mathias Baumann]

51 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Mathias,

FWIW, here is what Vincent Bugliosi wrote in his book:

"However, since the test was designed to test the proficiency of native speakers and students of the military's rigorous language schools, and Oswald had apparently acquired the language on his own, his [poor] grades were not that bad. He apparently had the rudiments of the language and a base on which to build. It was also apparent that he must have been studying for some time before he arrived in Santa Ana, mainly in Japan."

I don't know what Bugliosi's source was for the part I highlighted.

 

I don't think he got that from the Warren Report.

[Bernie Laverick]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Bernie,

That's a reasonable question. I haven't put much thought into that hypothesis, so perhaps you should ask those who have suggested that maybe the CIA tried to keep Lee and Harvey identical.

But off the cuff I can think of a couple reasons. Maybe the loss of the tooth was off the CIA's radar screen. I have a friend whose front tooth was broken off by a wrench that slipped. He didn't go see a dentist and the tooth was still broken many years later when he e-mailed a picture of his family to me. The point being that there was probably never a record made of the lost tooth.

Another possibility is that the CIA tried to keep the two identical only as far as medical records were concerned. And, recognizing that flesh scars wouldn't last long post-mortem, they concerned themselves only with keeping the bone-work identical.

 

Not ONE witness who apparently saw 'Lee' while 'Harvey' was in Russia mentioned a missing tooth. You'd probably notice something like that right? But NONE of them did. So just because there is no official record of the tooth being lost you'd think, just maybe, it would still have been noticeable?

Have you now gone back to "it was done post mortem" again? You need to read Jerry's recent post on that. Even Jim has now ruled this out. 

So why, when they did the mastoidectomy on Harvey to match up with 'Lee's' documented operation, didn't they simply remove the tooth?

I wish we could have an agreed explanation from the H&L supporters as to how 'Lee's' head and body was exhumed from the grave of 'Harvey'.

1 - Was it done when 'Harvey' was a youth?

2 - Was it done post mortem?

3 - Were the findings somehow faked?

You all keep switching back and forth from one to the other. ALL of you have at some point suggested all three!!!

Sandy, you're heart's not really in this anymore is it? Only pride is keeping you there, you do know that don't you?

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Not ONE witness who apparently saw 'Lee' while 'Harvey' was in Russia mentioned a missing tooth. You'd probably notice something like that right? But NONE of them did. So just because there is no official record of the tooth being lost you'd think, just maybe, it would still have been noticeable?

Yes of course, I think the missing tooth was noticeable. But I'm not surprised that people didn't talk about it. I've mentioned my friend to others I know and yet have never mentioned that he lost one of his teeth. What I wrote in my previous post is the only time I've mentioned it. There are lots of things about my friends that I never mention because they are neither important nor interesting.

 

4 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Have you now gone back to "it was done post mortem" again?

I've never switched positions. I've always said that there are a number of ways the exhumation finding could have been faked. I've always said that it would be interesting to know how it was done, but that knowing how isn't important. Just like knowing who really shot Kennedy isn't important.

 

[Bernie Laverick]

57 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yes of course, I think the missing tooth was noticeable. But I'm not surprised that people didn't talk about it. I've mentioned my friend to others I know and yet have never mentioned that he lost one of his teeth. What I wrote in my previous post is the only time I've mentioned it. There are lots of things about my friends that I never mention because they are neither important nor interesting.

 

I've never switched positions. I've always said that there are a number of ways the exhumation finding could have been faked. I've always said that it would be interesting to know how it was done, but that knowing how isn't important. Just like knowing who really shot Kennedy isn't important.

 

I've mentioned my friend to others I know and yet have never mentioned that he lost one of his teeth.

Is your friend in any way attached to the assassination of the century? Have you ever had to describe your friend to anyone in authority?

If your friend ever went missing you would DEFINITELY describe the missing tooth!!!!! Wouldn't you? And that's just for a missing person!

Sandy has deduced that because his friend has a missing tooth and he never mentions it, that everybody else in this world behaves exactly the same when they see someone with a missing tooth. Even when being asked for a detailed description of said person in a high profile murder case... The world is a little bigger than you think Sandy.

So when being asked about the description of the person identical to the one presumed guilty of the most notorious assassination in history, NONE of the witnesses mentioned his dental status because they believed it wasn't "important of interesting"? Note too, these are YOUR witnesses upon which 50% of the entire fallacy rests.

Why wouldn't it be important (and/or interesting) for witnesses to describe exactly what they saw? One witness, I forget her name, noticed how "shifty" he looked. She noticed that minute detail... but not his missing front tooth?

You may think facts like these aren't "important or interesting, but then again, why would you? You've shown us how much of a "truth-seeker" you aren't by the following statement...

"I've always said that it would be interesting to know how it was done, but that knowing how isn't important"

Exactly! Sums it up perfectly. You have no proof or details or evidence but it must be so for everything else to fit! Chronic circular thinking!

Do you think that is how a detective approaches a murder? Decides who has done it, (despite the evidence proving otherwise) but then refuses point blank to say how, just "we know he did it so such questions of how aren't  important of interesting". Is that how you would approach a murder inquiry?

Silly question. You already are...

 

Edited October 18, 2017 by Bernie Laverick

[Sandy Larsen]

40 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Quote

I've mentioned my friend to others I know and yet have never mentioned that he lost one of his teeth.

Is your friend in any way attached to the assassination of the century? Have you ever had to describe your friend to anyone in authority?

The point you're trying to make is irrelevant.

Those who knew Lee (the Oswald with the broken tooth) were largely ignored by the FBI because their stories contradicted the stories of those who knew Harvey. For example, Lee's friends in the military didn't know him to be interested in politics, communism, or the Russian language. Harvey's friends did.

 

40 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

If your friend ever went missing you would DEFINITELY describe the missing tooth!!!!! Wouldn't you? And that's just for a missing person!

Yes I would mention the broken tooth to authorities if my friend ever went missing. But so what? The Oswald who allegedly shot Kennedy didn't go missing.

If the authorities ever wanted to know what their Oswald (Harvey) looked like, all they had to do was look at him... or his photos. They would see he didn't have a broken tooth.

 

40 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Sandy has deduced that because his friend has a missing tooth and he never mentions it, that everybody else in this world behaves exactly the same when they see someone with a missing tooth. Even when being asked for a detailed description of said person in a high profile murder case... The world is a little bigger than you think Sandy.

 

See my answers above.

Lee wasn't the focus of the investigation, Harvey was. Even if a colleague of Lee's happened to mention that he had a broken tooth, the investigator would merely figured he was mistaken. They had photos and films of Oswald (Harvey) in their custody and knew he didn't have a broken tooth.

You really should think things through more carefully before you post, Bernie.

 

 

[Bernie Laverick]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The point you're trying to make is irrelevant.

Those who knew Lee (the Oswald with the broken tooth) were largely ignored by the FBI because their stories contradicted the stories of those who knew Harvey. For example, Lee's friends in the military didn't know him to be interested in politics, communism, or the Russian language. Harvey's friends did.

 

Yes I would mention the broken tooth to authorities if my friend ever went missing. But so what? The Oswald who allegedly shot Kennedy didn't go missing.

If the authorities ever wanted to know what their Oswald (Harvey) looked like, all they had to do was look at him... or his photos. They would see he didn't have a broken tooth.

 

 

See my answers above.

Lee wasn't the focus of the investigation, Harvey was. Even if a colleague of Lee's happened to mention that he had a broken tooth, the investigator would merely figured he was mistaken. They had photos and films of Oswald (Harvey) in their custody and knew he didn't have a broken tooth.

You really should think things through more carefully before you post, Bernie.

 

 

This just gets sillier by the second... You seem to have a big problem following this Sandy.

"Those who knew Lee (the Oswald with the broken tooth) were largely ignored by the FBI because their stories contradicted the stories of those who knew Harvey"

Yes but they weren't largely ignored by H&L supporters were they??? They account for 50% of the entire story. You assume a doppelganger because these witnesses all described seeing 'Lee' when 'Harvey' was some place else; but NONE of them supply the killer detail of a missing front tooth!! These are YOUR witnesses. Nothing to do with the official investigation or what the authorities were looking for. It's YOU that's looking for this. And you still haven't found ANYONE who can remember seeing Oswald, at Bolton Ford, for example, and him having a missing tooth.

"Yes I would mention the broken tooth to authorities if my friend ever went missing. 

Yes, of course you would, because that would be a significant and important detail.  And most people who met your friend would also add that detail if asked to give a general description. Maybe a few may not. Most would..

But so what? The Oswald who allegedly shot Kennedy didn't go missing."

Yes, but we are not talking of 'that' Oswald, are we? We are talking of your alleged doppelganger, who had a mastoid operation as a young boy which was confirmed by examinations to his corpse. The same corpse had no teeth missing. You now have to show us more proof than an old B&W photo that 'Lee' did indeed have a tooth missing. You can't look to witness testimony because ALL the people YOU ask us to take seriously who said they saw 'Lee' when 'Harvey was somewhere else never once mentioned him having a tooth missing. You seem to take this as PROOF that he DID have a tooth missing. You can't seem to get your head around this can you Sandy?

Lee wasn't the focus of the investigation, Harvey was

Oh crumbs! Please stop this... 'Lee' has been, and is right now, the focus of YOUR (H&L) investigation. It is YOU I am asking to give me testimony that backs up 'Lee' having a missing tooth. I don't expect the authorities to provide this and couldn't care less what they would say anyway. It is your story. It is your contention. You have to explain why NONE of your witnesses describe him having a missing tooth. 

Either ALL of these people who saw 'Lee', told their stories, described the event, described the clothing, conversations, and even described the mood and demeanour, yet none mentioned his missing tooth. NONE of them! These are YOUR star witnesses too, the ones that keep the fires of H&L burning, yet even they can't help you here. It was either that, as ridiculously unlikely as that would seem to normal people OR...he never had any teeth missing in the first place, as per his corpse.

And...finally 

But so what? The Oswald who allegedly shot Kennedy didn't go missing." 

Correct!! There they are for all to see on the corpse of the one and only LHO

[Sandy Larsen]

Oswald's friend, Ed Voebel, testified that he thought the punch to Oswald's face resulted in his tooth puncturing his lip and the tooth being knocked out.

For those of you who think Voebel was wrong about the tooth breaking, we have corroboration from Oswald's Aunt, Lillian Murret. Here is an excerpt from her WC testimony:

"Another time they were coming out of school at 3 o'clock, and there were boys in back of him and one of them called his name, and he said, "Lee," and when he turned around, this boy punched him in the mouth and ran, and it ran his tooth through the lip, so she had to go over to the school and take him to the dentist, and I paid for the dentist bill myself, and that's all I know about that, and he was not supposed to have started any of that at that time."

Marguerite had to take Lee to the dentist! Why would she have done that if his tooth had not been broken or knocked out?

So there we have it. Voebel thought the tooth had been knocked out. Murret said that Marguerite had taken him to the dentist, obviously for that reason. And finally, we have the photo taken shortly thereafter showing the missing tooth. Or rather, not showing the missing tooth.

It's a slam dunk!

 

[Sandy Larsen]

20 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

And you still haven't found ANYONE who can remember seeing Oswald, at Bolton Ford, for example, and him having a missing tooth.

I happen to believe that there were other Lee Harvey Oswalds after the switcheroo in the Marines. (Part of the CIA's Oswald Project.) The one at Bolton Ford possibly being one of those. I don't l know if the original "Lee" stayed in the project after the switch.

So you should direct the question to Jim.

 

[Bernie Laverick]

9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oswald's friend, Ed Voebel, testified that he thought the punch to Oswald's face resulted in his tooth puncturing his lip and the tooth being knocked out.

For those of you who think Voebel was wrong about the tooth breaking, we have corroboration from Oswald's Aunt, Lillian Murret. Here is an excerpt from her WC testimony:

"Another time they were coming out of school at 3 o'clock, and there were boys in back of him and one of them called his name, and he said, "Lee," and when he turned around, this boy punched him in the mouth and ran, and it ran his tooth through the lip, so she had to go over to the school and take him to the dentist, and I paid for the dentist bill myself, and that's all I know about that, and he was not supposed to have started any of that at that time."

Marguerite had to take Lee to the dentist! Why would she have done that if his tooth had not been broken or knocked out?

So there we have it. Voebel thought the tooth had been knocked out. Murret said that Marguerite had taken him to the dentist, obviously for that reason. And finally, we have the photo taken shortly thereafter showing the missing tooth. Or rather, not showing the missing tooth.

It's a slam dunk!

 

Yes we all know about this incident because the ENTIRE "tooth missing" story derives from this one event.

So now you are confident that 'Lee' had a missing tooth based on one witness testimony who apparently "thought" the tooth pierced the lip while being knocked out. (Wouldn't it need to be attached to pierce something??) Other than that there is a grainy B&W photo and a bit of hearsay. That's it! 

But if you are so confident...

Name me just one more person who could corroborate this?

Have you even looked?

[Sandy Larsen]

31 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Quote

Lee wasn't the focus of the investigation, Harvey was

Oh crumbs! Please stop this... 'Lee' has been, and is right now, the focus of YOUR (H&L) investigation. It is YOU I am asking to give me testimony that backs up 'Lee' having a missing tooth.

I can only quote testimony that was given. It's a shame John Armstrong didn't ask Lee's acquaintances about the tooth. I suspect he didn't realize at the time the significance. Or maybe he was satisfied with the testimony that we do have. You'll have to take this up with him.

I'm satisfied with the two witnesses and the photo. The tooth was gone.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

4 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Name me just one more person who could corroborate this?

I just did... Oswald's aunt. If I named another, you ask me to name yet one more.

I'm done.

 

[Bernie Laverick]

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I happen to believe that there were other Lee Harvey Oswalds after the switcheroo in the Marines. (Part of the CIA's Oswald Project.) The one at Bolton Ford possibly being one of those. I don't l know if the original "Lee" stayed in the project after the switch.

So you should direct the question to Jim.

 

Armstrong's pulling his hair out again!

"Jimbo!!! Get yourself down here right this minute and rescue Larsen!!! Who left him on his own???"

Ever heard of David Icke Sandy? Have a look on his forum. They believe that JFK wasn't actually killed. No, seriously. If you like mind-bending and mind-boggling conspiracies this site is for you. I'm fascinated to know what you would make of it. Your reaction could range from..."Yes, I'm a member" to..."These people are barking mad!"

Here's a taster...

JFK was a subordinate to the truth, incidentally.

And so higher ranking reptilians crossed out JFK because he was a vehicle for an entity that led him to powers of control that was contested by the reptilian overseers. These overseers found his power or enlightenment to be too engaging with the public or rather they failed to see some sort of potential in JFK and had to correct their error.
 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

39 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I can only quote testimony that was given. It's a shame John Armstrong didn't ask Lee's acquaintances about the tooth. I suspect he didn't realize at the time the significance. Or maybe he was satisfied with the testimony that we do have. You'll have to take this up with him.

I'm satisfied with the two witnesses and the photo. The tooth was gone.

 

First, how do we know that he didn't ask about the tooth and didn't like he answer he got? We don't and John Armstrong is not a reliable person. He coaches witnesses and his book is filled with errors and logical missteps. Second, no one can "take up" anything with him since he doesn't go on forums to defend himself and his nonsensical theory. Instead, he has guys like you and Hargrove do it. Finally on Lillian, IF she actually took him to a dentist, it may have been to make sure the tooth was ok. Or maybe she took him to a doctor and just forgot. If you read her testimony, she is mixed up at times.   

[Sandy Larsen]

22 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I can only quote testimony that was given. It's a shame John Armstrong didn't ask Lee's acquaintances about the tooth. I suspect he didn't realize at the time the significance. Or maybe he was satisfied with the testimony that we do have. You'll have to take this up with him.

I'm satisfied with the two witnesses and the photo. The tooth was gone.

 

First, how do we know that he didn't ask about the tooth and didn't like he answer he got? We don't and John Armstrong is not a reliable person. He coaches witnesses....

 

What evidence do you have that John Armstrong coaches witnesses?

 

22 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

and his book is filled with errors and logical missteps.

As with any book, there probably are some errors. I haven't seen any substantial ones.

 

22 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Second, no one can "take up" anything with him since he doesn't go on forums to defend himself and his nonsensical theory. Instead, he has guys like you and Hargrove do it.

 

John doesn't have me doing anything for him. I just happen to agree with most everything he's written that we've discussed here. There are some authors I largely agree with and some I largely disagree with.

 

22 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Finally on Lillian, IF she actually took him to a dentist, it may have been to make sure the tooth was ok. Or maybe she took him to a doctor and just forgot. If you read her testimony, she is mixed up at times.

 

Sure Tracy. Ed was wrong about the broken tooth. Liliian got confused and said dentist instead of doctor. And that clear photo of Lee's face has a defect right there on his tooth, making it appear to be missing.  LOL

"Denial ain't just a river in Egypt!"  LOL

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Sandy,

Armstrong called one witness "sweetheart" and Palmer McBride "magically" changed his tune after talking to Armstrong. So call it what you want, he influences them instead of asking objective "journalist" style questions and letting them speak. Of course, Armstrong took McBride to a convention and made a "star" out of him and that is using improper influence IMO. You can read the transcript of the Lifton-McBride interview to see an example of how a witness should be questioned. 

As far as LHO's trip to the dentist, the point is there is no documentation. It is another witness statement out of many that Armstrong supporters use to make their case in place of the unequivocal scientific evidence.