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

[Bernie Laverick]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But Harvey DID exist. Here is a simple proof of that:

1. Lee Oswald lost his tooth in a fist fight.
2. The exhumed body did not have a lost tooth.
3. Therefore the exhumed body was not Lee Oswald. It was somebody else. Let's call this person Harvey.
   
   Then continue the proof to show that Harvey had had a mastoid operation.
    
4. The exhumed body had a mastoid scar in the bone.
5. Therefore Harvey had had a mastoid operation.

Findings from the 1981 exhumation of Lee Harvey Oswald corroborates the existence of two Oswalds.

The anti-H&L group has lost the one piece of evidence that they thought was in their favor. Even I thought it was in their favor. But now I realize that those three pieces of corroborating evidence for Lee's lost tooth has effectively reversed that.

 

1 - Not enough evidence, that's why most on here dispute the missing tooth. Just because you need to believe it doesn't make it a fact!

2 - Stands to reason if, like us, you never thought it was lost in the first place. Everything is as it should be....

3 - Therefore...NOTHING!

4 - Correct, because like LHO's record shows, he had a mastoid operation, and didn't lose a tooth. Just as the corpse shows us.

5 - ????? Logic isn't your thing is it Sandy?

So, given we think/know that 'Harvey' didn't exist, clearly it would be impossible for me or anyone else to provide evidence that a mastoidectomy didn't take place on him!!

Again, logic not your strong point here is it Sandy?

And YOUR explanation for this is...? You hung your hat on it all been faked (of course, no evidence for this was provided). Now you believe it was performed on 'Harvey' somewhere in East Europe by pure chance at the same age and on same ear as 'Lee'. (And again we have no evidence for that either).

But Jim was telling us all only three pages ago that it was "most likely" done in 1952/3 in NY. Now both of you obviously think that that wasn't "likely" at all because you've completely and unceremoniously ditched it. But have you done so for good? I think not.

Your only 'proof' it is 'Harvey' is your chronically irrational belief that 'Harvey' existed. That's a logic that just feeds itself!  None of you ever doubt anything do you? EVERYTHING you say is so obviously 100% correct, even when you have to constantly swap explanations with no shame, no humility and no grace.

"It was faked!" And anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid and clearly under estimates what these plotters are capable of. LSD is thrown in our face to show how wicked they can be, the logic being, if they can do that then faking an exhumation would be a walk in the park. But for the 13th time in this thread you have punched that in our face only for two or three posts further on to abandon it and try another explanation!

Now you're down to... the Hungarian (or was he Russian?) refugee (or was he an orphan?) having had the exact obscure operation on the same ear to explain the unexplainable. That will be ditched shortly and we'll all be back to NY 1952 again, which was always Jim's preferred explanation.

If only us pesky kids would stop meddling with the fantasy he could have got away with it.

We really ruin your day when we ask for evidence don't we?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Bernie Laverick said:

 

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But Harvey DID exist. Here is a simple proof of that:

1. Lee Oswald lost his tooth in a fist fight.
2. The exhumed body did not have a lost tooth.
3. Therefore the exhumed body was not Lee Oswald. It was somebody else. Let's call this person Harvey.
   
   Then continue the proof to show that Harvey had had a mastoid operation.
    
4. The exhumed body had a mastoid scar in the bone.
5. Therefore Harvey had had a mastoid operation.

Findings from the 1981 exhumation of Lee Harvey Oswald corroborates the existence of two Oswalds.

The anti-H&L group has lost the one piece of evidence that they thought was in their favor. Even I thought it was in their favor. But now I realize that those three pieces of corroborating evidence for Lee's lost tooth has effectively reversed that.

 

1 - Not enough evidence, that's why most on here dispute the missing tooth. Just because you need to believe it doesn't make it a fact!

 

 

Not enough evidence??

Ed Voebel said Oswald lost a tooth. He preceded his statement with "I think," just like he did with most his statements.

But even if he truly wasn't sure, Aunt Lillian corroborates him, noting that Oswald was taken to a dentist. That leaves little doubt about the tooth.

But even if that weren't enough, Ed Voebel's picture provides additional corroboration for the missing tooth!

Not enough evidence my a$$!  We have a slam dunk!

Accept it Bernie. The exhumation findings show that the buried person was not Lee.

 

[Bernie Laverick]

The exhumation findings show that the buried person was not Lee.

Ha ha ha...Because Voebels "thought" it and because his aunt took him to a dentist is all the proof he needs!! Any documentation for said dentist? Has anyone looked?

When it comes to evidence Sandy you are very easily impressed aren't you?

Anyway, I'm sick of us amateurs arguing the toss. This debate should be conducted, somewhere, by the two leading protagonists without interruption from anyone else. It could be done fairly and it could even be moderated independently.

I propose that Jim and Greg, and Jim and Greg alone, have a structured debate around aspects of the H&L theory, to give them both room to develop their points and counterpoints. I know for a fact that Greg would more than willing to do this and has even suggested that Jim propose someone to moderate, as long as he isn't a full on supporter obviously. Clearly it couldn't be done on this forum, as we have no right or power to prevent other members from joining in if they so wished. 

Now hear me out here, I have a proposition. This debate could be carried out on ROKC as long as Jim has a strict assurance that no one else will be posting other than himself and Greg. That there will be a courtesy code so that both can stick just to the facts and the differing interpretations of those facts. That it is not to become a bun fight, but for once, an honest attempt to document, without my irritating sophistry, without the antagonisms, without Sandy's, at times, confusing input, without the cross posting that can sometimes cause confusion. etc... so as to document the fors and against and have a legible record for the differing explanations to the known facts.

It's got to be worth a try surely?

You may not like us ROKC folk, we swear a bit and we enjoy a bit of good humoured childishness, but none of us are here to be liked...are we? But I know that the members there will show respect to Greg, and not want to break the terms of the debate. And I personally think that that should be extended to not starting other threads to make comments on the main one, but clearly I have no right or power to insist that either. Maybe Greg can...

Greg wanted to debate this with Armstrong but he was fobbed off. Maybe Jim will take the challenge...?

 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

If they do have a debate, it should be on a neutral website where content cannot be deleted by either side. (I'd personally hate to spend time debating a topic, only for it to disappear for whatever reason.)

I don't see ROKC as being neutral. I think EF is neutral. There are only a few people who post on H&L threads. It wouldn't be hard to keep them from posting.

The debate could be done on a third-party site like forumotion.com.

 

[Michael Walton]

On 10/27/2017 at 11:53 PM, Kathleen Collins said:

LHO did not have a missing tooth.  It was a part of his lip that made it look that way.  Photographer Duncan, from Scotland, I believe, showed us this picture resized.  There was no missing tooth.  It's an illusion.

Kathy C 

I concur with Kathy. No missing tooth. Look at the morgue photo of LHO as well. You'd  think he had no teeth at all so again the point is the school photo is an illusion.

It's  disingenious  of Larsen to say that other researchers are flakes when he and others who believe  in this fake story are the biggest  flakes of all.

In other words don't  call someone  a flake when you're  a  flake yourself.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

As I pointed out several pages ago, anyone who still believes that the mastoidectomy evidence is in any way faked really needs to provide some sort of cogent argument to support that proposition. So far, we've been given a variety of implausible scenarios, all of which rely on nothing more than assertion.

It's telling that, as Bernie has pointed out, even the cult members themselves can't agree on which implausible scenario to support. These seem to be the current possibilities:

1 - A genuine mastoidectomy operation was performed in an unknown hospital somewhere in Eastern Europe on an unknown Russian-speaking Hungarian boy, or possibly an unknown Russian World War Two orphan, at some point before one or the other boy moved to the United States without leaving any trace in US immigration records.

2 - An unnecessary mastoidectomy operation was performed on the unidentified Hungarian or Russian boy by an unknown surgeon in 1952 or 1953 in a hospital in New York that wasn't built until 1955, without leaving any trace in the medical records.

3 - The body in Oswald's grave was surgically altered to show, falsely, that it had undergone a mastoidectomy. This surgical procedure was carried out by an unknown surgeon at some undetermined point between the body's burial in 1963, in front of a crowd of onlookers, and its exhumation in 1981, also in front of a crowd of onlookers.

4 - The body in the grave did not actually have a mastoidectomy defect until it was surgically altered shortly after its exhumation, while it was in the custody of several reputable scientists, who must have been complicit in the forgery and who knowingly published a false article in a reputable scientific journal.

5 - The body in the grave has never had a mastoidectomy defect. The photograph of the defect was faked by persons unknown. The scientists who examined the body were coerced into knowingly writing a false article, and perhaps the editors of the scientific journal were coerced into publishing the article.

6 - The body was beamed up to an alien spaceship and replaced by that of a clone, complete with a mastoidectomy defect. Fortunately, no-one noticed the spaceship and it was able to get back safely to its home solar system.

Are there any other implausible scenarios that I've missed? More importantly, is there any documentary evidence to support any of these scenarios? So far, there doesn't seem to be any evidence, just the fact that one of them must be true because, if not, the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory is dead.

It's time for the few remaining cult members to get their heads together and agree on which of these scenarios they think is the least implausible. Jim? Sandy? Anyone else? Which implausible scenario are you going to go for?

Once there's agreement on the chosen scenario, the next stage is for the cult members to provide some sort of documentary evidence to support their chosen scenario, or at least to start looking for some evidence. There must be something, ideally medical records or a photograph of the spaceship.

As for Bernie's suggestion of a structured debate between Jim Hargrove and Greg Parker, it's a good idea but can anyone really see Jim being brave enough to agree to that?

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

As for Bernie's suggestion of a structured debate between Jim Hargrove and Greg Parker, it's a good idea but can anyone really see Jim being brave enough to agree to that?

I'd *LOVE* to have a one-on-one debate with Greg Parker (or anyone else) about Harvey and Lee right here on the good ole JFK Assassination Debate Forum!!  Bring it on!!

As to Mr. B's comments about the exhumation of Harvey Oswald's cadaver, isn't it amazing how he always forgets to talk about the Magic Tooth?  I'd like to hear his detailed explanation of how that front tooth regrew.   

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.

 

 

And before anyone claims Voebel seemed uncertain about the missing tooth, let's just review his use of the word "think" during his WC testimony.

 

• 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]

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But Harvey DID exist. Here is a simple proof of that:

1. Lee Oswald lost his tooth in a fist fight.
2. The exhumed body did not have a lost tooth.
3. Therefore the exhumed body was not Lee Oswald. It was somebody else. Let's call this person Harvey.
   
   Then continue the proof to show that Harvey had had a mastoid operation.
    
4. The exhumed body had a mastoid scar in the bone.
5. Therefore Harvey had had a mastoid operation.

Findings from the 1981 exhumation of Lee Harvey Oswald corroborates the existence of two Oswalds.

The anti-H&L group has lost the one piece of evidence that they thought was in their favor. Even I thought it was in their favor. But now I realize that those three pieces of corroborating evidence for Lee's lost tooth has effectively reversed that.

 

The evidence of LEE Oswald's missing front tooth, and Ed Voebel's LIFE magazine photo, was in included in Harvey and Lee when John published it in 2003.  The evidence and photo, if memory serves, was up on my website even before that.  And yet the H&L critics almost always forget to mention it when they talk about the mastoidectomy.  Why is that?  The remarkable thing about this is that the same guy who testified that LEE lost a front tooth was the guy who actually took the photograph of LEE showing off his missing tooth.

But we're supposed to believe the photo is an optical illusion?  And Voebel was wrong.  And that Marguerite took LEE to a DENTIST to treat a split lip?  Marguerite was supposed to be a practical nurse.  Are we to believe she would select a dentist to treat a split lip?  C'mon.  This game should have been over a decade and a half ago.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Thanks for finding that, Tracy.

BTW, though we disagree on a lot of things, I have a lot of respect for you. You are very respectful and use a lot of tact. I could learn a thing or two from your behavior on the forum. (I should do that. But being an old dog, I probably won't.)

 

You're welcome. I got it from an email correspondent so it was easy to pass along.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

22 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The interpretation of the results of the exhumation are disproved because the cadaver has both upper front teeth intact.  The attending physicians were given Harvey Oswald’s Marine dental records, so naturally they matched. If Americans believed the so-called "scientific evidence" of the WC and the HSCA there wouldn’t be newspaper headlines all across the country right now and this forum wouldn’t exist.  Marguerite’s best friend, Myrtle Evans and her husband Julian, told the Warren Commission they wouldn’t have recognized Marguerite if they hadn’t been told who she was.

Let’s consider some other 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....

Of course, there are other reasonable explanations for all of these points. But those who choose to believe H&L can continue to do so because discrepancies exist.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

33 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I'd *LOVE* to have a one-on-one debate with Greg Parker (or anyone else) about Harvey and Lee right here on the good ole JFK Assassination Debate Forum!!  Bring it on!!

First, you have debated him right here and not much really came of it. As I mentioned above, there are indeed enough anomalies in the record for the H&L believers to point to and continue to believe in. Second, I posted some things from his forum here in the past and while you guys replied to some of it, you just ignored other things. I think we are reaching the point where about all has been said that can be on this subject.

[Jim Hargrove]

10 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

I propose that Jim and Greg, and Jim and Greg alone, have a structured debate around aspects of the H&L theory, to give them both room to develop their points and counterpoints.

 

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If they do have a debate, it should be on a neutral website where content cannot be deleted by either side. (I'd personally hate to spend time debating a topic, only for it to disappear for whatever reason.)

 

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

As for Bernie's suggestion of a structured debate between Jim Hargrove and Greg Parker, it's a good idea but can anyone really see Jim being brave enough to agree to that?

 

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I'd *LOVE* to have a one-on-one debate with Greg Parker (or anyone else) about Harvey and Lee right here on the good ole JFK Assassination Debate Forum!!  Bring it on!!

 

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

First, you have debated him right here and not much really came of it. 

Seems as if everyone is in favor of a debate between Greg Parker and me except Mr. Parnell.  What seems to be the problem?  Why can't we do it right here, right away?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

58 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Seems as if everyone is in favor of a debate between Greg Parker and me except Mr. Parnell.  What seems to be the problem?  Why can't we do it right here, right away?

It's certainly ok with me, I just don't see much new coming from it since you debated him extensively here in 2015 before he was banned. I will be glad to post his comments if needed.

EDIT: One suggestion-if you do go ahead with the debate it would probably be better to start a new thread, so it would be easy  for folks to find.

Edited October 29, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Bernie Laverick]

Greg is banned from posting on here, and as I said before, it is unreasonable to ask other members not to contribute if they so wished. If this is going to go ahead the whole point should be to facilitate a non confrontational format so that just the two people can be allowed to develop their thoughts without it being unintentionally side tracked with other people's random contributions.

 If they do have a debate, it should be on a neutral website where content cannot be deleted by either side. (I'd personally hate to spend time debating a topic, only for it to disappear for whatever reason.)  

I don't know how we overcome this level of paranoia. Why couldn't a "neutral" website also just do that? I'm trying to visualise what a neutral website actually means. Do you have any specific suggestions? If so, let's look at them. But being neutral means, of course, that neither has any control over the content. Should it be debated at ROKC with a non ROKC moderator and the content did all get deleted, what would that say? It would say that the arguments against H&L have been totally buried!!! It would be an admission that the theory cannot be countered. If it were the other way round I would certainly interpret it as being your inability to answer the pertinent questions and that's why you destroyed all the content. Your credibility would be in tatters! Likewise...

But you guys are so paranoid. The implication behind this is that your messianic belief in H&L is so strong that Greg will DEFINITELY have to delete it all after you're done! Come on, can we just grow up a bit please?

I didn't believe that Jim would agree to this and I think I'm going to be proved right. I knew he wouldn't baulk at the idea of a debate, in fact that he would thoroughly "welcome it". But could he be nailed down to actually see it through without objections to venue? Or format? Or, any other perceived obstacle that allows him to back away? I don't think you really want to debate this with Greg, but you can't openly say that so it looks like other impediments will have to prevent you... 

If ROKC is out of the question for you, then could you please suggest a venue that could facilitate a debate in the format I have outlined above?

 

 

 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Seems as if everyone is in favor of a debate between Greg Parker and me except Mr. Parnell.  What seems to be the problem?  Why can't we do it right here, right away?

 

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

It's certainly ok with me, I just don't see much new coming from it since you debated him extensively here in 2015 before he was banned.

 

1 hour ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Greg is banned from posting on here, and as I said before, it is unreasonable to ask other members not to contribute if they so wished.

Oh, brother.  First I was told that Mr. Parker was voluntarily staying away from this forum because he felt he had been mistreated.  Now you guys say he was banned, no doubt unfairly, because he’s such a stand-up fellow and all.

And I’m supposed to go over to his obscenity-filled site that he controls and debate him there?  The same site where he copied a picture of a respected Ed Forum moderator/author and smeared the copied image of his face with what appeared to be mud... or something even dirtier.

Really?

About the only time I was there he seemed to be interested more in scatological insults than real debate, declaring that my “face is in my feces” or something like that. You guys are free to wallow in his dirt for as long as you like.  I no longer follow any of your links there.

Perhaps Mr. Parker can apologize to the moderators here and work something out if he desires to debate me.  I hope he does.