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

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

What mountain of evidence? Oh, you mean Harvey. Harvey and his tooth that wasn't missing.

Yeah I know... you use that same "mountain of evidence" to show that LHO attended two schools simultaneously. (See, we don't think that is possible, so we believe there were two Oswalds.) You use that same "mountain of evidence" to show that LHO was in Taiwan and Japan simultaneously. (See, we don't think that is possible, so we believe there were two Oswalds.) Etc., etc., etc.

 

As I have said Sandy, take your evidence to a journalist and be sure to let us know when you do. And while you're at it, why don't you contact Norton and DiMaio and tell them you think they are in on the plot? I'd be interested in their reaction.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

3 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Actually, that's the first time I've re-posted it, although other posts I've made show the missing tooth and the Magic Tooth in the grave. But now that you have suggested it, I think I'll re-post it as many times as you keep misrepresenting the evidence, which should give me plenty of opportunities, eh?

Whatever happened to saving server space and using your own site?

[Jim Hargrove]

All the graphics are coming in from a site that I pay for.

[Jim Hargrove]

4 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

As I have said Sandy, take your evidence to a journalist and be sure to let us know when you do. And while you're at it, why don't you contact Norton and DiMaio and tell them you think they are in on the plot? I'd be interested in their reaction.

Is there no end to your misrepresentations?  Norton and DiMaio were not aware that a second Oswald was also in the Marine Corps at the same time.  Had they known that, they would have realized they had to dig far deeper into the medical records they were asked to compare with the exhumation results.  DiMaio admitted that many World War II era people had the same mastoidectomy scar.

[Bernie Laverick]

27 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You are using circular logic, Tracy. Because the exhumation findings are the things we are arguing.

 

NO YOU ARE NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read above, Jim is telling us that this operation was done on 'Harvey' "most likely" in 1952/53.

Stop muddying the water by ALSO saying the exhumation findings were faked!!! Why would they need to be faked if 'Harvey' had had the operation?

It's one or the other and cannot be both. This is why it is so frustrating arguing with you people. You just will not stay on topic for more than five posts without slithering off to a new position. It's like trying to nail jelly to a brick wall! 

And as for misrepresenting your position on Jim's now confirmed explanation that 'Harvey' too had a mastoid operation when he was young to match up the records, it is on this very thread where you cast grave doubts that the CIA would go that far. I can find you the posts if you like?

Like I can find you the posts where you state you believe that there were "multiple doppelgangers" as that was only a few days ago. Remember saying that Sandy? "Multiple doppelgangers"? What page of the H&L book is that on then? And would you care to elaborate or should we all just say random stream of consciousness outlandish trash, blurting out silly nonsense on the basis that the wilder it is the more likely it is to be true? That's your idea of research and truth seeking is it?

Get with it Sandy, Jim has decided you're sticking with the unnecessary operation performed on a young boy (who coincidentally turns out to be so identical to his pre chosen unrelated doppelganger that the only way you can tell them apart is by a 'pixel biometric study') so as to later match up to 'Lee's' known medical record. Of the three possible explanations you have, this was your least favourite wasn't it? You prefer the "findings were faked" road don't you? I can understand that. Lots of things have been faked and distorted in this assassination investigation, throw your explanation into that basket and hope no one asks how it was done.

But you can't now because Jim has over ruled you. You have to live with it. No doubt, within ten minutes you will become its most fearless advocate and throw your whole weight behind it. You have no choice now.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

25 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

How would you then address this "fact" that I see three teeth missing?

Lee has his head tilted in a way that we see primarily the fronts of his teeth on his left, and primarily the bottoms of his teeth on his right. This contributes to an optical illusion that makes the teeth on his left look longer than the teeth on his right. Shading probably adds to the illusion. I believe also that, due to swelling of the upper lip, his lips are wider open of his left than on his right. Again contributing to his teeth on his left looking longer.

The teeth on his right look so short that at first glance they may seem not to be there. But the fronts of those teeth are covered by the swollen lip.

That said, I suppose it's possible that he lost two front teeth.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

29 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

But at least some of those people could be expected to mention, even if not asked, that he had a missing tooth right in front. That would be something that might come up in conversation.

You're right. But if nobody recorded it, then none of us will ever know the topic even came up.

Regardless, remember that there's a very good possibility that Lee wore a false tooth. In which case nobody would have even noticed he was missing a tooth.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

30 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

As I said, Lillian was sometimes confused during her testimony.

Right, right. But to accept what you believe, we have to believe that THREE things are wrong IN PRECISELY THE SAME WAY.

It is much, much more likely that they are all correct.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

33 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

But I see 3 missing teeth. What are you going to do about this "fact?" 

Send you a pair of glasses? 

I think it's an illusion. But, as I said earlier, he could have lost two teeth. The top incisors are very wide and each one can appear to be more than a single tooth.

In my opinion  it's an optical illusion that makes it look like a wide opening. But I'd concede if most people thought it is two teeth missing.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

27 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

But you can't now because Jim has over ruled you. You have to live with it. No doubt, within ten minutes you will become its most fearless advocate and throw your whole weight behind it. You have no choice now.

This is rich!  Mr. Laverick seems to be under the impression that someone (me?) is in charge here.  Mr. Laverick would LIKE to be in charge, and sometimes acts like he THINKS he is, but he isn't either.  No one is.  

[Sandy Larsen]

1 minute ago, Jim Hargrove said:

31 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

But you can't now because Jim has over ruled you. You have to live with it. No doubt, within ten minutes you will become its most fearless advocate and throw your whole weight behind it. You have no choice now.

This is rich!  Mr. Laverick seems to be under the impression that someone (me?) is in charge here.  Mr. Laverick would LIKE to be in charge, and sometimes acts like he THINKS he is, but he isn't either.  No one is. 

Bernie is one confused puppy, isn't he.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

BTW, you didn't answer my other point. I can see the anomaly in he photograph to which you guys are referring. I KNOW it is not a missing tooth because there is a mountain of evidence that says it isn't. But if I were unfamiliar with the case, I might look at the photo and agree with you. But I also might say the gap looks larger than just one tooth. I might think it was three teeth. How would you then address this "fact" that I see three teeth missing?

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....

[Sandy Larsen]

4 minutes 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....

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

 

 

 

[Bernie Laverick]

How and why I used to be a believer in H&L...No, this is NOT satire! 

Some of you may of heard of 'Lobster' magazine, it was an investigative journal produced by a guy called Robin Ramsay. As it happens, Robin only lives a few doors away from me, and many decades ago we were both members of the same branch of the Labour Party. We aren't/weren't bussom buddies, (I haven't seen him for over 15 years) but I know him and I have a lot of respect for what he achieved publishing Lobster. He spent a lot of print debunking silly theories but was still uber cynical of the 'Deep State'. It was a well respected journal.

Many years ago, not through this forum, I came upon the H&L story and was intoxicated by it. I read the online articles (I couldn't then afford the book) and was shall we say, 80 - 90% convinced that there was definitely something to this. At that time (10 or 15 years ago...?) I didn't have access to, or didn't know where to look for, those who were debunking it. Clearly I didn't know the nuts and bolts of H&L, but my faith in it was partly fuelled by the belief that our intelligence services would be prepared to do anything, literally anything, to get their desired outcome. 

Then coincidentally Robin started a thread on here (I didn't even know he was a member on here then), an infamous one as it later turned out, stating how he too felt that H&L was something that needed more research. And he was very complimentary of Armstrong's work. Wow! Even Robin Ramsay is impressed! I read a bit more and by that time, having been a lurker on here for ages and then a member for a year or so, I started posting. The two areas of interest for me were the Tippit shooting and the H&L story.

I am on record here on this very forum pro actively pushing H&L. 

I once got into a spat with Duke Lane, someone who's posts I had always admired for their eloquence and clarity, about the Tippit shooting. During that time I wondered whether it was 'Lee' who was responsible for this, and whether it was 'Lee' who was the one taken out at the back of the cinema. Of course, he made mincemeat out of me. It was one of my first forays into this arena and he wiped the floor with me. If I have the time I'll try and dig out the thread/posts

I began having a few doubts, then I started reading Greg's posts on the subject. Greg had always impressed me with his incisive research, and his tenacity to get to the very heart of the matter on other topics he had contributed on. I have to say though I was a bit disappointed when I saw his first scathing posts on H&L. I wondered if he was losing the plot a bit. Then, bit by bit the whole elaborate charade came crashing down. One brick after another. It was all a psych-ops scam after all. I felt a little used. And a little angry. Angry at myself for sure for being so naïve and allowing that intoxication to take hold and angry at the snake oil salesmen selling it.

I said earlier I didn't have access to those debunking it, now I'm honest enough to realise that I obviously didn't see it as being important enough to look for it! I was happy where I was.

We have three layers of interest in this assassination. The wider, seemingly disinterested public. The keen student. The researcher. I'm definitely in the second camp but united with the third because their expertise can help us understand what really went on so as to educate the first camp. Where this may lead is anyone's guess, but without public clamour nothing ever changes. So it angers me that with all the existing complexity surrounding this case we have fakes and charlatans around every corner desperate to make a name or a quick buck, or more sinister, to divert and to bog down the progress and ultimately make us look like a tin-foil hat laughing stock.

That's why I post about H&L.

I'm an apostate!!!

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

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.