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

[W. Tracy Parnell]

3 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

 Here's my masterpiece. Thank me on the way out

Good job Michael. Regarding your comparison of ears, before DNA ears were studied to do identifications. Some guy who was an expert looked at LHO and determined that various photos of him were the same man. This is explained in the book "Real or fake" by Joe Nickell. I never made too much out of this because I was never able to find the original study the book was based on so I don't know what photographs were used. It could have been similar to the HSCA study where "Lee" was unintentionally underrepresented. But anyone can see that two different people would not have ears that are identical. 

I think we are at a place where most researchers now reject H&L. There will always be a few who want to continue to believe and make no mistake-it is a belief rather than something based on fact. In any case, thank you for this contribution to the overwhelming evidence against H&L.

[Michael Walton]

Thanks Tracy. I agree about the pre DNA investigation  techniques. I remember  seeing in a police book how ears eyes and so on were used as a form of ID.

If any of the HL supporters doubt the similarities then they're  simply beyond redemption LOL

And Joseph's "it's  in the shoulders" post was one of  the  most ironically funny posts I've  ever seen in this thread. And the "it's the CONTRAST, buddy!" post was not too far behind.

But brace for it I'll  now be up for more ridicule and threats from old Dave. It's funny how when we post info based on common sense, plausibility, the ring of truth, and of course evidence, they revert to school yard insults, then have the nerve to call us out if WE say how ridiculous they're whole story is.

LOL

 

Edited November 4, 2017 by Michael Walton

[Jim Hargrove]

Anyone who thinks the two mug shots below are of the same man are free to do so.  I've often said that I'm not good with faces, but they don't look the same to me.

One thing is perfectly obvious, though.  Look at the head of hair on LEE Oswald in the 1959 photo (below left) which was attached to HARVEY Oswald's passport application.

 

Now look at the three pictures below, showing the fast developing widow's peak in LEE Oswald's hair from 1956 to 1958.  How did that widow's peak just vanish in 1959?

 

And for anyone who thinks LEE Oswald’s widow’s peak is just an example of a “high and tight” military haircut, as Mr. Parnell would like you to believe, just do a Google image search of the "high and tight" cut.  What you’ll find looks like this….

 

Note how the close buzz cut doesn't end toward the back of the head, as it does with Lee's huge widow's peak in 1956 and 1958 (and still visible with apparently longer hair in 1957).  Many of the official photos have been messed with, which is why you can't just look at pictures to understand this case.  You have to look at ALL the evidence, and that is a lot more work.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

As I explain here:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-hunter-photo.html

The "Hunter" photo was likely taken in early 1957, so this is a misrepresentation by Armstrong. Don't know when the middle photo was taken. A "high and tight" is a general hair style and could vary.

[Michael Walton]

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Anyone who thinks the two mug shots below are of the same man are free to do so.  I've often said that I'm not good with faces, but they don't look the same to me.

One thing is perfectly obvious, though.  Look at the head of hair on LEE Oswald in the 1959 photo (below left) which was attached to HARVEY Oswald's passport application.

You are correct, Jim.  Any one is free to think this looks like the same person or not. The only problem - actually the main problem - here is when someone is trying to uphold a story like the HL team is doing. Then, in that case, all reasonable sanity is completely thrown out the window to protect the "brand." I, Tracy, and others have nothing to gain by disagreeing with the HL story.  At the same time, I do find it very interesting that I (a CTer) and Tracy (a LNer) BOTH come to the same conclusions regarding the HL story. And I believe Bernie and Jeremy are also both CTers.

As for Oswald's hair, can't people change throughout their life? I went from a bowl cut in the 60's to a shag in the 70's to a trim in the 80's and 90's and now I'm practically bald. The same with Lee Harvey Oswald. Basing an entire conspiracy theory on hair styles and "concluding" that this same person was two different people is a huge leap of fantasy.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

In his latest post, Jim admits that a photograph which the cult attributes to the fictional character, 'Lee', is attached to a passport application form which the cult attributes to the other fictional character, 'Harvey'. On the face of it, that contradiction invalidates the whole theory. As with the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave, we have something that ought to be unique to one fictional character (the photograph of 'Lee') incongruously appearing with something that ought to be unique to the other fictional character (the passport form of 'Harvey').

Fortunately, Jim provides a solution: "many of the official photos have been messed with." That's handy! If a piece of evidence contradicts your case, simply claim that the evidence has been faked. It's utterly irrational, but that's what cults are like. As with the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave, it's best to be as vague as possible about the actual procedure by which the evidence has been faked, and hope that no-one looks too closely.

The common-sense explanaton, of course, is that the photograph was that of the same person who filled out the passport application form. I was wondering what thinking processes led the cult to attribute that particular photograph to that particular fictional character. How does the cult identify 'Lee' in photographs, and how does it identify 'Harvey'? I think I've worked it out. It's all about belief.

Jim recently brought up the late Jack 'the moon landings were faked' White's infamous montage of photographs of the one and only historical Lee Harvey Oswald. According to Jim and Jack, there are actually two Oswalds depicted in that montage.

I'm not so sure. Let's have a closer look at the montage and see how many 'Oswalds' we can find. I won't be doing anything like taking accurate measurements, of course, because that's too rational. I'll be applying some good old 'Harvey and Lee' logic instead. If I want to see differences between the photographs, and if I do in fact see differences, then those differences must be real, and the photographs must be of different people.

If you don't have a copy of Jack White's montage, you can find it here: http://cdm17178.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/fullbrowser/collection/po-jfkwhite/id/3204/rv/compoundobject/cpd/3221/rec/1 .

Let's start with the example Jim gave. Photograph 23 shows Oswald with a thick neck. Photograph 24 shows him with a thin neck. That's two Oswalds. OK, so in one picture he's facing forward and in the other he's facing sideways, but that doesn't matter. I've proved, positively and beyond any doubt at all, that there were at least two people who called themselves Lee Harvey Oswald!

Now compare photograph 23 with photograph 20, the one in which Oswald's head is absolutely, definitely 13 inches tall. In photograph 23, he has a thick neck and a wide face. In photograph 20, he has a thick neck but a narrow face. That proves that there were three Oswalds: thin-neck Oswald, thick-neck Oswald, and narrow-face Oswald.

Now compare photograph 23 with photograph 38. He has a thick neck in both pictures, but his face is even wider in photograph 38 than it is in photograph 23. That proves that there were four Oswalds: thin-neck Oswald, thick-neck Oswald, narrow-face Oswald and fat-face Oswald.

There are lots of photographs in Jack 'the moon landings were faked' White's montage, and I'm sure that the careful viewer could apply 'Harvey and Lee' logic to identify many more than four Oswalds. If you desperately want to see differences, and if you aren't very particular about sciencey nonsense like taking measurements and compensating for different camera angles, different poses and different lighting conditions, and if you aren't bothered by working with very poor-quality photographs, you could probably identify a dozen or more Oswalds. I have no doubt that most of these Oswalds were Hungarian refugees who mysteriously left no trace in US immigration records and that they were all involved in a really exciting plot! Oh, and each of them had a mother named Marguerite who was also involved in the plot!

That's how the irrational 'Harvey and Lee' cult mentality works. You identify a possible anomaly in a photograph or written document or witness statement, you ignore all the obvious common-sense explanations, and you come up with an explanation that hints at a sinister, all-encompassing plot. It's no surprise that this idiotic theory was partly dreamed up by some guy who thought that the moon landings were faked.

As we have seen in this thread and elsewhere, there are common-sense explanations for all the main 'Harvey and Lee' talking points: the school records, the Bolton Ford incident, the Taiwan/Japan thing, Marguerite's house-buying, the photographs which show four or more Oswalds if you want to see them, and so on. Anyone is entitled to prefer a particular far-fetched explanation over the equivalent common-sense explanation, but until the cult members put forward something that genuinely doesn't have a common-sense explanation, everyone else is correct in treating the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory as far-fetched paranoid speculation.

Is there even one piece of the 'Harvey and Lee' evidence that doesn't have a common-sense explanation?

[Bernie Laverick]

Is there even one piece of the 'Harvey and Lee' evidence that doesn't have a common-sense explanation?

No. Not one Jeremy. And furthermore, there is nothing else left to discover. There are no new witnesses; there are no new documents, there is not one jot of new research; there is no further  evidence of a doppelganger LHO or a doppelganger Marguerite since the weekend of the assassination. Armstrong covered Everything! EVERYTHING! Pointless looking because the boss has found everything there is to find. 

How do they know Armstrong has found everything? Cos he said so!

Where did 'Lee' go? They aren't even interested in finding this out. It is totally irrelevant to them as to what became of 'Lee'. They've not looked nor have the slightest intention of doing so. Imagine how stupid we would look if they actually did a bit of research and found a new witness that corroborated their story. "No need", is the reply. They've got all they need. The H&L investigation stopped when Armstrong published it. Since then it has been treated as a static, carved in stone bible, rather than a basis for a co-ordinated and structured search for the truth.

Jim doesn't believe a word of it either.

It's so obvious!

 

Edited November 4, 2017 by Bernie Laverick
spelling

[Jim Hargrove]

51 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Fortunately, Jim provides a solution: "many of the official photos have been messed with." That's handy! If a piece of evidence contradicts your case, simply claim that the evidence has been faked. It's utterly irrational, but that's what cults are like. As with the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave, it's best to be as vague as possible about the actual procedure by which the evidence has been faked, and hope that no-one looks too closely.

Only "cult" members would believe the FBI faked evidence about the Kennedy assassination?  Really, Mr. Bojczuk?

Most people on this forum, with the apparent exception of H&L critics, are undoubtedly aware of how the FBI faked a wide variety of evidence in this case. The short (3 minute) YouTube video below demonstrates quite clearly how the FBI altered the observations of three critical Dealey Plaza witnesses who believed shots may have been taken at JFK from outside of the Texas School Book Depository, thus contradicting the official story. 

 

 

The FBI went to extraordinary lengths to suppress evidence of what CIA accountant James Wilcott called the “Oswald Project,” including sending out agents within hours of the assassination to confiscate original school and teen-aged employment records of “Lee Harvey Oswald.” In the wee hours of the night of Nov 22-23, 1963, the FBI secretly took “Oswald's Possessions” from the Dallas Police Department, transported them to Washington, D.C. altered them, and then secretly returned them to Dallas, only to publicly send them to Washington. D.C. a few days later. Among a great many other alterations, a Minox “spy camera” became a Minox “light meter.” Tax records, not found by Dallas police who said they initialed each scrap of paper, magically appeared without DPD initials.  FBI agent James Cadigan inadvertently spilled the bean about the secret transfer during his sworn WC testimony, which was altered by the WC.

 

The FBI falsified so much testimony that it even had a process in place for routinely doing so, including over the objections of Warren Commission attorneys.  

 

And, of course, General Counsel J. Lee Rankin of the Warren Commission was informed in April 1964 that John Heart Ely's assembling of evidence regarding the biography of "Lee Harvey Oswald" would "require material alteration and, in some instances, ommission."

 

For more about how the FBI altered evidence, see this link:

Manipulated, Fabricated, and Disappearing Evidence

It is clear that the FBI was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to hide the truth about the Kennedy Assassination and “Lee Harvey Oswald.”

Edited November 4, 2017 by Jim Hargrove

[Jim Hargrove]

52 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

As with the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave, it's best to be as vague as possible about the actual procedure by which the evidence has been faked, and hope that no-one looks too closely.

The H&L critics always mention the mastoidectomy but they always forget to explain how LEE Oswald's missing front tooth regrew in HARVEY Oswald's grave.  Why is that?

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.

--Warren Commission: Vol. 8, Page 3

 

And yet Harvey Oswald's cadaver had all its front teeth intact at the time of the exhumation.  Why is that?  And why do the H&L critics always forget to mention that?

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

In his latest post, Jim admits that a photograph which the cult attributes to the fictional character, 'Lee', is attached to a passport application form which the cult attributes to the other fictional character, 'Harvey'. On the face of it, that contradiction invalidates the whole theory.

Mr. B. sure likes to misrepresent things.  Nearly 15 years ago, John wrote that the photograph of LEE Oswald was attached to the application for HARVEY Oswald's 1959 passport.  It has nothing to do with my "latest post," which makes it sound like a recent attribution

On the passport application Oswald listed the birth dates of both his mother and fa­-
ther incorrectly and attached a photograph. The photo that was stapled to the 1959 pass­-
port application was of Lee Oswald (not Harvey), who is sporting a very short, military­
type crew cut and wearing a suit and tie. 59-21 Oswald's passport, #1733242, was issued
by the Los Angeles passport agency six days later, on September 1Oth.  [H&L. p. 247]

[Sandy Larsen]

8 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Is there even one piece of the 'Harvey and Lee' evidence that doesn't have a common-sense explanation?

No. Not one....

 

Right, Bernie. In your world it makes perfect sense for a single boy to attend two schools -- located in different states -- simultaneously. 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

I'm gonna rock the boat here a little bit. Take a look at these two photos:

 

 

I agree with Jim that they don't look like the same person. Let me point out just one thing that is different between the two. Please pay attention and observe it for yourself.

Look at their left eyes (on our right). Look at the flesh between the eye and the eyebrow. The guy on our right has noticeably more flesh. It's like he got hit in the eye and it is swollen in that area. The same is not true of his right eye (on our left). Nor is it true of the guy on our left.

I use this marker as a way to tell me which photo is of lee and which is of Harvey. And which photos are composites. If a photo looks like Lee but has the fleshy left eyelid, it's a composite.

Now, regarding this photo:

 

 

First, this is not a photo at all... it's a pencil drawing. A very fine one. That this is a drawing is betrayed by various things, like the appearance he is wearing mascara on his eyebrows. (I suspect that the artist was a woman.)

This drawing was clearly made from a photo of Lee... compare the face to Lee's above. It's the same face. But whoever drew this was instructed to add elements of Harvey's face to it. For example, you can see that this drawing includes that fleshy part above the left eye.

That this is a drawing may explain why the mouth is lower than it should be. Or it could be that Lee's mouth really is lower than Harvey's.

BTW, it is my believe that that artist made a mistake in drawing the height scale in the background. She got the height right (though for Lee it would be 5' 11") but not the scale of the chart. Thus the drawing shows Oswald's head to be a whopping 13" in height. If this increase in height were really due to Oswald standing several inches in front of the chart, as suggested by the anti-H&L crowd, then the photo would show Oswald to be much taller than his real height. For some reason that fact gets lost in the minds of the anti-H&L crowd.

 

[Bernie Laverick]

 

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Right, Bernie. In your world it makes perfect sense for a single boy to attend two schools -- located in different states -- simultaneously. 

 

No because that would be impossible given the laws of our universe. 

But no one has proved that one individual attended two different schools. We believe, as in the post you have 'cleverly' responded to, that there is a common sense answer! 

Ever used those two words before Sandy? Common sense? If you did it would sure lessen your confusion...

 

[Jim Hargrove]

21 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

No because that would be impossible given the laws of our universe. 

But no one has proved that one individual attended two different schools. We believe, as in the post you have 'cleverly' responded to, that there is a common sense answer! 

Ever used those two words before Sandy? Common sense? If you did it would sure lessen your confusion...

Ah, and in Mr. Laverick's common sense world, Lee Oswald's missing front grows back in Harvey Oswald's cadaver!  Thank you for 'splaining "common sense" to all of us!

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Bernie Laverick said:

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Right, Bernie. In your world it makes perfect sense for a single boy to attend two schools -- located in different states -- simultaneously. 

 

No because that would be impossible given the laws of our universe. 

But no one has proved that one individual attended two different schools. We believe, as in the post you have 'cleverly' responded to, that there is a common sense answer!

 

Okay Bernie....

What's the "common sense" answer that explains the school records showing Oswald attending both Public School 44 in the Bronx, and at the same time Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans, during fall semester 1953? The school records do show that. What's your explanation?

Or are you just gonna ignore this problem once again? And continue to say there's a common sense explanation for it even though you have no idea what it is or if it even exists?

 

Edited November 5, 2017 by Sandy Larsen