Jeremy Bojczuk Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 David Josephs writes: Quote HARVEY was buried since it was HARVEY who[m] Ruby shot. LEE has a record of a Mastoidectomy. Correct! My mistake! It's easy to get the characters' names mixed up when you're dealing with a work of fiction. You mention that "Dr. Rose made no notation of a Mastoid scar on the Fact sheet". Is that piece of nitpicking supposed to prove that the body he was examining had not undergone a mastoidectomy operation a decade and a half earlier? Seizing on trivial anomalies in the documentary record, and assuming that they signify some sort of nefarious activity, is a mistake that occurs over and over again in the 'Harvey and Lee (and Marguerite and Marguerite)' theory, not to mention the other moon-landings type of JFK conspiracy theory. Are you seriously suggesting that the body in the grave did not have what the Journal of Forensic Sciences article describes as a "mastoidectomy defect"? This is what the article says: "The mastoid prominence of the left temporal bone revealed an irregularly ovoid 1.0 by 0.5 cm defect penetrating to the interior of the mastoid bone with the defect edges rounded and smooth. ... The left mastoidectomy defect also correlated with the antemortem medical records". The body in the grave had undergone a mastoidectomy operation. According to 'Harvey and Lee (and Marguerite and Marguerite)' doctrine, however, the body was that of 'Harvey' but the operation had been carried out on 'Lee'. Whoops! Sandy Larsen writes: Quote The mastoidectomy is in no way one of the central elements of the theory. It is, rather, one of the weakest points. There are some inessential elements of the 'Harvey and Lee (and Marguerite and Marguerite)' theory, such as the speculation about whether the imaginary 'Harvey' character was the imaginary child of imaginary Russian-speaking Hungarian refugees, or whether 'he' was an imaginary Russian-speaking World War Two orphan. The mastoidectomy issue, on the other hand, is central to the theory, and deserves to be given as much attention as possible. The biography of the two characters requires that the character who was buried had not undergone the operation. If the body in Oswald's grave had in fact undergone the operation, the theory collapses. And because it is undeniable that the body had undergone the operation, the theory collapses. It is conclusive proof that the 'Harvey' and 'Lee' characters were figments of the imagination. The only rational interpretation of that evidence is that there was only one, historical, Lee Harvey Oswald, who underwent a mastoidectomy operation at the age of six and who was buried in Rose Hill Cemetery, Fort Worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: The fact that the height comes out accurate (or fairly accurate) while the head is too big is what makes this a mystery. But Kirk testified that one would be accurate and the other off. "if it is an actual recording of his true height, then it would be an inaccurate recording of his head size." Which is exactly what we see in the photo. Right height-wrong head size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 Regarding the appearance of the mastoid defect: As we examined the skull, the small hole in the left mastoid process leapt out. Its man-made edges were rounded and smooth, healed but not natural. It was an old lesion that couldn’t be faked. DiMaio, Dr. Vincent; Franscell, Ron. Morgue: A Life in Death (p. 118). St. Martin's Press. Kindle Edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 23 hours ago, David Josephs said: #20 is of LEE entering the Marines with the gigantic head... #66 is Harvey's arrest photo from New Orleans in Aug 1963 22 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said: Was it Lee or Harvey that was 2 inches taller than the other? 22 hours ago, David Josephs said: Harvey was shorter than Lee by a couple of inches and was a few dozen pounds lighter... This is what I don't get then with all this talk about which one was taller than the other one... it seems from your answer, David, that Lee was 5ft 11 and Harvey was 5ft 9... yet photo #20 shows the height of being 5ft 9 and #66 shows a height of 5ft 9 as well (well actually that photo itself doesn't, but there is the 'fuller' image of his New Orleans arrest that does show him to be 5ft 9)... *The previous discussion between W Tracy Parnell and Sandy Larsen in regards to the 'big head' (photo #20) reveals that either the 5ft 9 is the exact height of the Oswald in it, or that he is shorter than that... Anyway, as something of an 'observer' in the whole 'Harvey & Lee' thing (inasmuch as I have no particular 'vested' interest either way) I do have to ask why I am looking at two different photos showing someone being measured as 5ft 9 and yet being told that one is actually 5ft 11. lol Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 12 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: But Kirk testified that one would be accurate and the other off. "if it is an actual recording of his true height, then it would be an inaccurate recording of his head size." Which is exactly what we see in the photo. Right height-wrong head size. Tracy, You misunderstand that sentence. The photo is a recording of dimensions. It records Oswald's height as 5' 9" and his head as 13" tall. Now let's break the sentence down into parts and interpret it: "if it is an actual recording of his true height, ...." Yes, 5' 9" is an actual recording of his true height. So the following is true: ....then it would be an inaccurate recording of his head size." And yes, 13" is an inaccurate recording of his head size. If that isn't clear, let's just put both recorded numbers into the sentence: "if [5' 9"] is an actual recording of his true height, then [13"] would be an inaccurate recording of his head size." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 At the age of 17/18 Lee had not yet grown into himself... Same with Harvey for whom we have no marine entry data. As expected, when he leaves the Marines, the records show he is now 5'11" and 150 lbs. The Marine training and time will do that to a man... agreed? What I simply want to know is how a 5'11" man shrinks down to 5'9" or less between the ages of 21 and 24. How a man goes from 150lbs and growing, to 135 lbs soaking wet 3 years later How a brother who grew up with the boy Lee, can be so accurate when telling Lee from some other person in photo after photo... the Bronx photo is taken 2 years after the 5'4" 115lb boy enters 7th grade in NYC and moved in with Ed Pic. Of course that boy does not look like Lee Oswald... it's not. The boy in the Bronx photo is barely 4'10" and no where near 115lbs. Boys don't shrink as they grow and pass thru puberty... Add now all the evidence separating Lee the Marine and his friends with Harvey the Marine and his... and the fact they don't overlap. The argument against has to deal with 100's of items of evidence which all has to be either a mistake, coincidence or wrongly interpreted for it to be rebutted. When dealing with 1 item, your arguments have some merit... but a couple of rebuttals does not a theory destroy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 20 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said: *The previous discussion between W Tracy Parnell and Sandy Larsen in regards to the 'big head' (photo #20) reveals that either the 5ft 9 is the exact height of the Oswald in it, or that he is shorter than that... It should be noted that it was Tracy who said that if Oswald height was recorded (in the photograph) correctly, then the height of the head was recorded incorrectly. And vice versa. And I understand how he got that impression. It was from Mr. Kirk's final statement, which isn't really true. Let me explain. Look at Kirk's conclusions: Sergeant KIRK - This chart on the right demonstrates the fact that unless Mr. Oswald was standing directly with his back against the wall and the camera was at the correct distance, [the photo] would not be an accurate recording of his true height. Mr. GOLDSMITH - I am sorry, I did not catch your last sentence. Sergeant KIRK - It is unreasonable to assume that this photograph is the actual recording of his true height. I should add if it is an actual recording of his true height, then it would be an inaccurate recording of his head size. What Kirk said in the two sentences I highlighted is true. It is his very last sentence -- which I didn't highlight -- that is confusing. That sentence contradicts the two sentences that I did highlight. Anybody can understand this issue if they will just think about it for a moment. Suppose you are aiming a camera at a wall with a height chart attached. There is a guy standing with his back against the wall. His photograph is taken. It shows his correct height and the correct height of his head. Now, suppose you do the same thing, but you tell the guy to stand away from the wall, closer to the camera. When someone or something is close to the camera, It will look large in the photo! That is, its image takes up more space on the film. The height chart, on the other hand, will remain the same height as before because it didn't move closer to the camera. Therefore, the person will now look big relative to the chart. He will look taller. His head will look bigger. Everything will look bigger! Now, let's put Oswald in the picture and have him stand closer to the camera. His apparent height in the photo should increase, and the apparent height of his head should increase. (EVERYTHING should increase!) So when we look at the photo of Oswald and see his head is 13" tall (instead of 9 inches), we expect to see his height increased as well... perhaps to 8 or 9 feet! But surprisingly, it remains at 5' 9"! Which is like magic! How did his head get bigger but not the rest of him??? It's a mystery! Kirk said, "unless Mr. Oswald was standing directly with his back against the wall and the camera was at the correct distance, [the photo] would not be an accurate recording of his true height." Because that should have been the case. Yet it wasn't. It's a mystery!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, David Josephs said: When dealing with 1 item, your arguments have some merit... but a couple of rebuttals does not a theory destroy... I'll just add that, if we could be sure of everything we have been told about the mastoidectomy, and the related scars both early on and after the exhumation, then yes, the Harvey and Lee theory would be destroyed. But we can't be sure. And as David says, that is just one piece of evidence. Compared to a host of evidence supporting the theory. Now if there were several instances of evidence like the mastoidectomy, pointing against H&L being factual, then the theory would come tumbling down. But as of now that is not the case. At least not from what I've seen. Edited April 12, 2017 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: If that isn't clear, let's just put both recorded numbers into the sentence: "if [5' 9"] is an actual recording of his true height, then [13"] would be an inaccurate recording of his head size." Just a misunderstanding I guess because we agree on this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Briggs Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 10 minutes ago, David Josephs said: When dealing with 1 item, your arguments have some merit... but a couple of rebuttals does not a theory destroy... For clarity, it is, and has never been, my aim to 'destroy' the theory... 11 minutes ago, David Josephs said: At the age of 17/18 Lee had not yet grown into himself... Same with Harvey for whom we have no marine entry data. As expected, when he leaves the Marines, the records show he is now 5'11" and 150 lbs. The Marine training and time will do that to a man... agreed? In terms of 'bulking' up, yeah I can agree that Marine training and time will do that... ... in terms of the height, I'm not convinced. Sure records may show him as being 5ft 11 but that may not mean he is necessarily that height, did he just orally report he was that tall? Was it an actual measurement? How can we be sure? 17 minutes ago, David Josephs said: What I simply want to know is how a 5'11" man shrinks down to 5'9" or less between the ages of 21 and 24. I've seen a photo measuring him at 5ft 9 'before' and one measuring him at 5ft 9 'after', in between times there is a record listing him as 5ft 11 - either he grew and shrunk or there is another explanation... 20 minutes ago, David Josephs said: How a man goes from 150lbs and growing, to 135 lbs soaking wet 3 years later If Marine training is enough to 'bulk' up I would imagine that after the 'training' is finished there would be a certain revertion to type... 26 minutes ago, David Josephs said: How a brother who grew up with the boy Lee, can be so accurate when telling Lee from some other person in photo after photo... the Bronx photo is taken 2 years after the 5'4" 115lb boy enters 7th grade in NYC and moved in with Ed Pic. Of course that boy does not look like Lee Oswald... it's not. The boy in the Bronx photo is barely 4'10" and no where near 115lbs. Barely 4ft 10? From looking at that photo and looking at the measurements beside it the '4ft 6' lines up with underneath his nose, so for him to be 'barely 4ft 10' then the rest of his head must measure no more than 4 inches... then again his head is tilted slightly and that would surely make a difference, if his head was straight that could add an inch or so to his height... and for all we know his neck isn't sitting proud and that can make a difference too... and of course it has to be noted that his legs are apart and that will always make someone look shorter than they actually are... all things considered I can see how the person in that photo could actually be a fair bit taller in real life than they may appear to be in the photo... ... as for not looking 115lbs - I will take your word for that. Of course, Mr Pic did say, on being shown that photo; "Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald.". What he doesn't say is that the photo is not of Lee Harvey Oswald! Merely that he could not recognize it as LHO from that picture... slight difference. 1 hour ago, David Josephs said: The argument against has to deal with 100's of items of evidence which all has to be either a mistake, coincidence or wrongly interpreted for it to be rebutted. Any theory can be refined over time, and if some things are shown to be, not in error per se, but that can't be used as part of the theory then that doesn't 'rebutt' the theory as a whole... ... for example, like the claim that the 'no entry to Hungary' on his passport was to stop him from returning home, well that was shown to be on a few other passports too and clearly not for that reason... But yeah, as you said, a couple of rebuttal does not a theory destroy. Regards P.S. A lyric from a Paul Weller song just sprung to my mind and it seems apt for how I think about this whole topic: "All I see, the more I know, the more I know, the less I understand." lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: I'll just add that, if we could be sure of everything we have been told about the mastoidectomy, and the related scars both early on and after the exhumation, then yes, the Harvey and Lee theory would be destroyed. But we can't be sure. And as David says, that is just one piece of evidence. Compared to a host of evidence supporting the theory. Now if there were several instances of evidence like the mastoidectomy, pointing against H&L being factual, then the theory would come tumbling down. But as of now that is not the case. At least not from what I've seen. What regarding the mastoid operation are you not sure about? There are several major instances of evidence pointing against the theory and many minor ones. 1. mastoid operation 2. handwriting analysis 3. photo evidence http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-harvey-lee.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 Thanks Jeremy... your incredulity over the situation does not change history. Since you can't seem to figure out what I am actually suggesting.... Let's see if this helps There was a conspiracy and cover-up to kill JFK and then to silence any real investigation. They got away with it. The evidence which we are all left with is an incomplete jigsaw puzzle with pieces from a variety of images all mixed in... If you choose not to accept the totality of the evidence as opposed to cherry-picking something for which you have some input - fine. Bring what you have. That the spycraft of the times eludes you and leaves you cursing that which you can't fully understand - also fine and extremely obvious to all who read it. When you've taken the time to do the work to learn about that which you seem so desperate to attack, maybe we can have an actual conversation. I simply cannot suffer any more of the fools who think they have the answer to one or two issues while glossing over 50 or 100 others. There are those who need to invoke the Armstrong name in order to get any attention to sell a book or two... otherwise no one would notice. There are those who are so confused by spycraft that anything they don't see as logical and explainable as wrong. Maybe read one of Hancock's books... Nexus is a good place to start. Better yet any of a bunch of books on the origins of spycraft. I see that you have no real sense of how archaic the times were in 1963... There was no way to piece this together back then so creating duplicity was much easier to hide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 1 hour ago, David Josephs said: The boy in the Bronx photo is barely 4'10" and no where near 115lbs. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-bronx-zoo-photo.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) The 1956 Marine photo is an optical illusion Edited March 3, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted April 12, 2017 Author Share Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Tommy, This one is Lee. Thanks, Sandy. It would be nice if a Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites specialist were to put together a new graphic showing, separately, all of the photos of "Lee," and all of the photos of "Harvey" (which appear to be all mixed together in Jack White's "poster"), and which included, if necessary, a special category for "undecided." (I've got a sneakin' hunch that the "undecided" photos will comprise a very large group, indeed.) -- Tommy Edited April 12, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now