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

[Thomas Graves]

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I don't know what the "so-called neck scratching film" is, but the other situations you describe all involve Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald.  Considering how often you give your opinion about Harvey and Lee, I'm amazed that you don't even know the basics about it.

Jim,

What Michael is calling the "so-called neck scratching film" is viewable in this video starting around 03:50 and lasting, with different segments, until around 03:45.  It was filmed by 16-year-old James Doyle, from Portland, Oregon, on 8/09/63 in the 700 block of Canal Street.  (Not in front of the International Trade Mart; that was filmed exactly one week later on 9/16/63.)

--  Tommy

Edited April 6, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Jim I know this is going to sound sarcastic but it's  really not. But just tell me....

The guy we see handing out leaflets in NO - the guy talking in a TV interview  in NO - the guy in custody and the one who says "I'm  here because  I  lived in Russia...I'm  a  patsy" - the guy at the midnight press  conference  - the guy in NO ranting on film filmed by a young kid (the so-called neck scratching film)...

I'm  assuming you  think these are all one  and  the  same  person....

Is that person as described in all films above  the Harvey one or the Lee one?

PS please don't  post a long saga as a reply with highlighted documents  and  so forth.

Just answer...

Is it Harvey or Lee?

Thank you.

Michael,

They believe that the "Oswald" you reference in the above films was "Harvey", a guy who was born in Hungary, learned Hungarian language from his parents, then learned Russian while still in Hungary, who finally started learning English when he moved to the U.S., with his parents as a young boy, who eventually joined the Marines, "defected" to Russia, married Marina, returned to the U.S. with her and their infant daughter, and was killed by Jack Ruby on 11/24/63.

http://harveyandlee.net/NID97.htm

--  Tommy

Edited April 6, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

I can prove that the USS Skagit left for Taiwan before September 16.

The Skagit arrived at Pingtung, Taiwan on the 19th. So if it left Japan on the 16th, it took only three days to get to Pingtung.

I used this online calculator to determine that the distance from Atsugi to Pingtung is 1440 miles. (It's actually a little further because the distance given is for a straight flight. A ship has to go around Taiwan a little bit to get to Pingtung.)

In order for the ship to arrive in three days, it had to have traveled 1440 miles in 72 hours. The speed of the ship would have needed to be 1440/72 = 20 mph. I used this Google page to convert mph to knots. It gave me 17.4 knots.

The ship would actually have had to travel faster than 17.4 knots because of the warm ocean current there, which the ship traveled against. It is called the Kuroshio current.

But let's ignore that for my proof.

Now here is the rub... the "flank speed" of the USS Skagit was only 16 knots. (Source) The flank speed of a ship is the fastest it can go. According to Wikipedia, "flank speed is reserved for situations in which a ship finds itself in imminent danger, such as coming under attack by aircraft. Flank speed is very fuel-inefficient and often unsustainable because of propulsion system limitations."

Also according to that article, "Other speeds include one-third, two-thirds, standard, and full. One-third and two-thirds are the respective fractions of standard speed. Full is greater than standard, but not as great as flank."

In other words, the USS Skagit would have had to been hauling ass for three straight days in order to get to Pingtung on the 19th... if the HSCA and Greg were right about the ship departing on the 16th.

Oh, and don't forget that ocean current the ship was fighting. According to this Google page, the Kuroshio current moves at an average speed of over 2 mph. That may not sound like much, but remember that the Skagit, when hauling ass, traveled at only 20 mph (as I showed above). The current would have slowed the ship down by 10%. The ship might not have even made its destination in three days given that impediment, even traveling at maximum speed.

Conclusion: The USS Skagit had to have left Japan for Taiwan prior to September 16th.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Conclusion: The USS Skagit had to have left Japan for Taiwan prior to September 16th.

What this means -- if there were only one Oswald -- is that according to the document below, Oswald's treating physician onboard the USS Skagit sent him to the Atsugi Mainside Lab for a smear test when the ship was sailing somewhere in the East China Sea.

 

 

 

Of course, the truth is that this sick bay record was not taken aboard the USS Skagit at all. It stayed onshore with Lee Oswald while Harvey was en route to Taiwan.

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Michael Walton]

Thank you Tom.

I'm  sorry  Jim but it's  very hard to keep  track of this caper.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

Michael,

They believe that the "Oswald" you reference in the above films was "Harvey", a guy who was born in Hungary, learned Hungarian language from his parents, then learned Russian while still in Hungary, who finally started learning English when he moved to the U.S., with his parents as a young boy, who eventually joined the Marines, "defected" to Russia, married Marina, returned to the U.S. with her and their infant daughter, and was killed by Jack Ruby on 11/24/63.

http://harveyandlee.net/NID97.htm

--  Tommy

Not only that, but by the time of his exhumation in 1981, the fictional 'Harvey' had somehow managed to acquire a scar from a mastoidectomy operation, despite not having had such an operation during 'his' fictional lifetime.

According to 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine, the operation had been carried out on 'Lee', not 'Harvey'. That tells you all you need to know about this nonsensical theory, which can't even get its basic plot line straight.

In the real world, of course, the operation was carried out on the historical, real, and far from imaginary Lee Harvey Oswald, whose body it was that was exhumed in 1981.

[Michael Walton]

Jeremy  that's  what  I  was wondering  about too. I thought all those film clips of LHO including  the  one  gunned down by Ruby has to be mastoid  LHO since the same one  laying on the autopsy table is him too. And that's  the  one buried and exhumed.

[Alistair Briggs]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I can prove that the USS Skagit left for Taiwan before September 16.

The Skagit arrived at Pingtung, Taiwan on the 19th. So if it left Japan on the 16th, it took only three days to get to Pingtung.

I used this online calculator to determine that the distance from Atsugi to Pingtung is 1440 miles. (It's actually a little further because the distance given is for a straight flight. A ship has to go around Taiwan a little bit to get to Pingtung.)

In order for the ship to arrive in three days, it had to have traveled 1440 miles in 72 hours. The speed of the ship would have needed to be 1440/72 = 20 mph. I used this Google page to convert mph to knots. It gave me 17.4 knots.

The ship would actually have had to travel faster than 17.4 knots because of the warm ocean current there, which the ship traveled against. It is called the Kuroshio current.

Is it known what time it left on the 16th and what time it arrived on the 19th? I know you have done your great calculations on it being 72 hours, but it could have been longer than that (up to 96 hours) depending on the departure and arrival time. If it left at 8am on the 16th and arrived at 8pm on the 19th that would be 84 hours... probably won't make much difference to the end result though.

[Sandy Larsen]

56 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Is it known what time it left on the 16th and what time it arrived on the 19th? I know you have done your great calculations on it being 72 hours, but it could have been longer than that (up to 96 hours) depending on the departure and arrival time. If it left at 8am on the 16th and arrived at 8pm on the 19th that would be 84 hours... probably won't make much difference to the end result though.

I figured I'd let the H&L critics dig up the records to prove me wrong. But even at 96 hours (and taking the ocean current into account) the ship would have to run at 92% flank speed. I'm certain that that would still be above "full speed," let alone "standard speed."

However, it could not have been as long as 96 hours. Because the critics say that Oswald went to the Mainside Lab for a smear test the day the ship left for Taiwan. That cuts off at least 9 hours from the 96 hours, leaving 87.

Taking that into account, the ship would have to travel at 16.1 knots. Which, as before, is over the ship's flank speed of 16 knots. (Not that being over the flank speed is the issue. Running anywhere near or above the flank speed is the issue.)

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Michael Walton]

I figured I'd let the H&L critics dig up the records to prove me wrong. But even at 96 hours (and taking the ocean current into account) the ship would have to run at 92% flank speed. I'm certain that that would still be above "full speed," let alone "standard speed."

But why would you  want the critics to do that, Sandy? We're  just going to stand here and watch as a seemingly  intelligent person, one who values his high IQ, keeps running  around  in an endless circle.

[Alistair Briggs]

It could be a lot less time too, of course (I forgot to say that in my last comment. lol) - if it had left at 11pm on the 16th and arrived at 1am on the 19th then that would be 50 hours - full steam ahead captain indeed. lol

Anyway,

15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I figured I'd let the H&L critics dig up the records to prove me wrong. But even at 96 hours (and taking the ocean current into account) the ship would have to run at 92% flank speed. I'm certain that that would still be above "full speed," let alone "standard speed."

 

I did a quick calculation using your above distance of 1440 miles, and if it was a period of 84 hours that would equate to an average speed of 14.8 knots. According to this page here the 'normal steaming speed' of the USS Skagit was 15 knots. Taking the ocean current in to account would certainly 'slow' it down...

Regards

[Jim Hargrove]

Parker and Parnell will never admit the truth about this silly argument, but let’s just review all the evidence that the U.S.S. Skagit with Harvey Oswald aboard departed Yokosuka, Japan on Sept. 14, 1958.  As Sandy discovered a day or two ago, the Skagit’s own webpage indicates it departed on Sept. 14 (emphasis added):

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

Recollections of: Clark Leonard, LT. USMC
Combat Cargo Officer 1958 - 1959

….

In September 1958 we proceeded to Yokosuka, Japan where we loaded personnel of Marine Air Group 3 and filled the holds with steel matting for an airfield and with 5" shells for the Chinese Nationalists defending Quemoy and Matsu, two small islands off the Chinese mainland. We were not supposed to carry ammunition but Quemoy and Matsu were in desperate need and we had the duty. The men were very hesitant to load live shells and store them in the holds. We were really lucky we were not all killed, as we were not qualified to do it, but you do as you are told.

Departed Sept.14 and ran into Typhoon Helen, very rough seas, and giant waves. Arrived Kaoshung, Formosa on Sept,19 unloaded matting continuously for 48 hours. When I went to the new airfield they were laying matting down in a soggy rice paddy and F-9 Cougars were starting to arrive.  Amazing!  The ammunition was loaded directly onto LSTs and sent to Quemoy. At this time Formosa was a third world country. I hired local workers to help on the ship, three coolies for a day, for the price of one box of C rations (enough to serve one man for one day). Life was cheap!!!

Source: http://www.ussskagit.org/Timeline1944to1969.html
 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Page 684 of the Warren Commission Report includes the following statement:

On September 14, Oswald sailed with his unit for the South China
Sea area the unit was at Ping Tung, North Taiwan on September 30,
and returned to Atsugi on October 5.361 On October 6, he was trans-
ferred out of MACS-1 and put on general duty, in anticipation of his
return to the United States.362
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Harvey Oswald’s Unit Diary of Sept. 14, 1958, certified correct by Wm. A. Allanson, indicated that the Skagit “sailed fr Yokosuka Japan for the South China Sea….”

 

 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Page 5 of CE 1961 also indicates the Skagit departed Japan on September 14:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

So what gives Parnell and Parker the opportunity to grasp at a straw that the Skagit actually sailed on Sept. 16 rather than Sept. 14?  Answer: the following document, an obvious lie by the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense attempting to explain how Oswald could be treated for VD at Atsugi, Japan while en route to Taiwan about the Skagit:

 

Why on earth would anyone who supposedly wants to “Reopen the Kennedy Case” rely on such an unreliable document as the one above?  The fraudulent note from the Sec. Def’s office even implies that LHO never went to Taiwan, despite a massive amount of evidence otherwise.  This attempted cover-up is so blatant and obvious it is downright pitiful.

Why do Parnell and Parker put any reliance on this cover-up document and an HSCA reference to it?  Because both of them are desperate and willing to say ANYTHING that will hide the evidence for two Oswalds, that’s why.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Answer: the following document, an obvious lie by the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense attempting to explain how Oswald could be treated for VD at Atsugi, Japan while en route to Taiwan about the Skagit:

Another document that is a "lie." I used to wonder how Armstrong figured out what documents and witnesses and other evidence to rely on. After all, he thinks the FBI faked just about everything. Jim and Sandy say much of what the HSCA did was forged. But yet you go through the citations in H&L and you see the FBI, HSCA, and all the other official sources listed. Then one day I figured it out. Anything that supports the H&L theory wherever it comes from is legitimate. And anything that doesn't support H&L is fake.

BTW, Parker is replying to Jim and Sandy:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1399-the-skagit-according-to-a-former-crew-member

Edited April 6, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I figured I'd let the H&L critics dig up the records to prove me wrong. But even at 96 hours (and taking the ocean current into account) the ship would have to run at 92% flank speed. I'm certain that that would still be above "full speed," let alone "standard speed."

 

I did a quick calculation using your above distance of 1440 miles, and if it was a period of 84 hours that would equate to an average speed of 14.8 knots. According to this page here the 'normal steaming speed' of the USS Skagit was 15 knots. Taking the ocean current in to account would certainly 'slow' it down.

No, 15 knots was not the "normal steaming speed" of the USS Skagit. First of all, "normal" as used here has no special meaning other than "the speed the ship was usually sailed at." (I have a suspicion  that the person who wrote that number meant that the normal fleet speed was 15 knots. Or maybe that 15 knots was the Full Speed.)

The flank speed -- the fastest speed at which a ship can be sailed, and one that is used only in emergencies -- was 16 knots for the USS Skagit. (I found two independent sources for that figure.) The 15 knot speed you found is 94% of the Skagit's flank speed. Does anyone really believe that the USS Skagit normally sailed at 94% of it's fasted speed?

Let's get a little perspective here.

On this page I found the following information:

"On modern Amphibious Assault warships of 40,000-tons displacement, such as the Tarawa class of the US Navy, Ahead One-Third is listed at 5 knots, Ahead Two-Thirds is listed at 10 knots, Ahead Standard is listed at 15 knots,  Ahead Full is listed at 20 knots, and Ahead Flank is listed at 24 knots."

(I confirmed in Wikipedia that the flank speed is indeed 24 knots.)

First, note that Full Speed is 83% of Flank Speed. Going "full speed ahead" isn't even close to going flank speed.

Second, Standard Speed is 75% of Full Speed. And only 63% of Flank Speed. (!!!)

The other speeds -- those below Standard Speed -- are both calculated relative to Standard Speed:

Two-Third Speed = 2/3 x Standard Speed

One-Third Speed = 1/3 x Standard Speed

One would think that a ship would normally be sailed at Standard Speed... or less if conserving fuel was important. If we apply the figure we have above for the Tarawa class to the USS Skagit, Standard Speed would be 63% of 16 knots (flank speed), which is 10 knots.

Yes, 10 knots is a reasonable figure for a "normal speed." Maybe a little higher, like 12 knots. But 15 knots is not. It's an error on the webpage.

Note: One guy wrote on that USS Skagit website that they were able to get the ship to sail at 18 knots.That tells me that the 16 to 16.5 flank speed given in the sources I found are reasonable. Clearly the crew who got the ship to sail at 18 knots were testing the ship for how fast it would actually go. The fleet speed is not that speed. The fleet speed is a published figure, and is the maximum speed the ship can be expected to sail.

 

Edited April 7, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

7 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Anything that supports the H&L theory wherever it comes from is legitimate. And anything that doesn't support H&L is fake.

Bullcrap! Jim gives the evidence that exposes the lies. And you choose to ignore that evidence.