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

[David Josephs]

1 minute ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

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

Just took a look - that's not photographic comparison Tracy.  

You can't take a ratio of distance in a 3D image and claim the ratio holds... that's not how photos work.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

31 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Just took a look - that's not photographic comparison Tracy.  

You can't take a ratio of distance in a 3D image and claim the ratio holds... that's not how photos work.

 

Yes you can as long as the objects are close together and on the same basic plane as is the case with LHO leaning on the railing. If one object is farther back from another then no.

Edited April 12, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Just a misunderstanding I guess because we agree on this point.

Oh yeah, you're right. Sorry about that.

(When you started your reply to me by saying, "But Kirk testified that..." it sounded to me like you were using what he said to disagree with me.)

 

[Thomas Graves]

19 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oh yeah, you're right. Sorry about that.

(When you started your reply to me by saying, "But Kirk testified that..." it sounded to me like you were using what he said to disagree with me.)

 

Don't get all paranoid, Sandy.

--  Tommy

[Thomas Graves]

2 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

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

Bumped because Sandy missed it, I guess.

Edit:  I wonder if Hargrove or Josephs feel up to it?  (I'm challenging them to put all of the photos on Jack White's "poster" into their "proper" category: "HARVEY," "LEE," or ... uh, .....  "UNDECIDED")

Edited April 13, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

 

3 hours 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...

I wouldn't trust the measurement in that 5' 9" USMC induction photo if I were you. It impossibly shows Oswald's head to be 13 inches in height. Which is about 150% the normal size.

Granted, that would be possible -- simply by moving Oswald away from the chart and closer to the camera. But if that is what happened, his height should also have been inflated by the same 150%, increasing his apparent height to about 7.5 feet. But no... his height remained at a reasonable 5' 9". Which makes the measurements in the photo a mystery..

 

[Thomas Graves]

"Well, let's see ...  since this photo was taken on such-and-such date and in such-in-such place, it must be ... uh ....."

LOL

--  Tommy

Edited April 13, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

What regarding the mastoid operation are you not sure about?

I'm not sure about the exhumed body really having signs of mastoidectomy. I've seen too many cases of witness tampering and experts getting things wrong in the WC and HSCA.

[Thomas Graves]

On 4/12/2017 at 6:18 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

I'm not sure about the exhumed body really having signs of mastoidectomy. I've seen too many cases of witness tampering and experts getting things wrong in the WC and HSCA.

In other words, you only trust stuff that tends to support Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites, huh?

And you call "fake" or "altered" any evidence that does not support it.

LOL !

--  Tommy

Edited April 14, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

30 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

2 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

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

Bumped because Sandy missed it, I guess.

Edit:  I wonder if Hargrove or Josephs feel up to it?  (I'm challenging them to put all of the photos on Jack White's "poster" into their "proper" category: "HARVEY," "LEE," or ... uh, .....  "UNDECIDED")

I think that's a great idea.

It's pretty easy for me to tell the difference between Lee and Harvey.There are a few that are difficult, but I think those are composites. They look neither like Harvey nor Lee, but they do look like each other. One day I was curious... I cut one of the composites in half with a vertical cut. I made a mirror image of each side and taped the right halves together and the left halves together. Here is what I ended up with: One was unmistakably Lee. The lower part of the other one looked like Harvey, wheres the upper part (the forehead) reminded me of the forehead of Dr. Smith of Lost in Space!

 

Because the composite's face is turned a bit, this resulted in a narrow forehead for Lee and a wide one for Harvey. I think that's the reason it reminded me of Dr. Smith. Note the wider forehead and narrow cheeks.

 

[Thomas Graves]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I think that's a great idea.

[...]

 

My challenge stands.

--  Tommy

[Sandy Larsen]

On 4/12/2017 at 7:34 PM, Thomas Graves said:

On 4/12/2017 at 7:18 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

I'm not sure about the exhumed body really having signs of mastoidectomy. I've seen too many cases of witness tampering and experts getting things wrong in the WC and HSCA.

So, you will only trust stuff that tends to support Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites, huh?

LOL !

--  Tommy

It's a methodology I apply to everything re. the JFK assassination. I trust the authorities only when:

1. There is no incentive for them to lie. Or...
2. What they report is evidence against the official story they are trying to push.

I in no way have limited that methodology to Harvey & Lee. I've used it on every hypothesis I've formulated. Most recently I've used it on the stories of Baker, Lovelady, Shelley, Vicki Adams, etc.

The signs of mastoidectomy reported in the exhumation violate both numbers 1 and 2 above. I will not accept them as fact.

How do you filter your government-produced "facts," Tommy? Randomly? Or does it depend upon whether it fits in with your pet theories?

 

Edited April 15, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It's a methodology I apply to everything re. the JFK assassination. I trust the authorities only when:

1. There is no incentive for them to lie. And...
2. What they report is evidence against the official story they are trying to push.

I in no way have limited that methodology to Harvey & Lee. I've used it on every hypothesis I've formulated. Most recently I've used it on the stories of Baker, Lovelady, Shelley, Vicki Adams, etc.

The signs of mastoidectomy reported in the exhumation violate both numbers 1 and 2 above. I will not accept them as fact.

How do you filter your government-produced "facts," Tommy? Randomly? Or does it depend upon whether it fits in with your pet theories?

 

Wow, you really do wanna believe in Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites don't you, Sandy?

Does it fill some deep psychological need of yours to distrust governmental authority in a Libertarian-kind-of-way, and to truly believe that we live in a CIA-NSA-controlled "National Security State" (as Jimmy D likes to put it), or a George Soros / Hillery "Killery-Shillery" Clinton / Illuminati- controlled "Deep State" as the Alt-Right claim?  And that's how you're able to suspend your critical-thinking abilities and swallow hook-line-and-sinker the theory that two boys were chosen by the evil, evil OSS in 1947, or so, and that they .... ?

--  Tommy

PS  "I trust the authorities only when what they report is evidence against the official story they are trying to push."

HUH?

So, you've already decided that everything the Warren Report, the HSCA, etc, reported as being factual was actually a prevarication?

"How do you filter your government-produced 'facts,' Tommy? Randomly? Or does it depend upon whether it fits in with your pet theories?"

Do you think I had some kind of vested interest in proving that Stella Jacob had been mis-identified as Gloria Calvery on the north side of Elm Street?

Etc?

What makes you think I have any "Pet theories," anyway?

The closest thing I have to "pet theories" are are little internally-consistent vignettes.

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Dawn Meredith writes ( http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/&do=findComment&comment=349992 ):

Quote

All of the witnesses who testified as to the perfection of Harvey's Russian had zero motive to lie. And was pointed out he had not mastered the English language. Typical of someone whose second language is English.

But there is ample evidence that when Oswald returned to the USA, his spoken Russian, though good, was far from perfect. That's the point: he was clearly not a native speaker, unless, somehow, spending more than two and a half years surrounded by other native speakers of Russian had caused him to forget the grammar of his native language, which is, to put it mildly, not very likely.

What is your evidence for Oswald having "not mastered the English language"? Listen to any of the surviving recordings of Oswald speaking English. He is clearly a native speaker. True, his written English was poor, but that proves nothing. There are plenty of reasons (dyslexia being the best known, though it may not have applied to Oswald) why native speakers communicate poorly in the written form of their own language. The mistakes he made in writing, he did not make in speaking. And his command of spoken English was that of someone born and brought up among native English speakers in the USA. The natively Russian-speaking 'Harvey' was a fictional character.

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

David Josephs writes ( http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/&do=findComment&comment=350227 ):

Quote

Since you can't seem to figure out what I am actually suggesting.... Let's see if this helps
 

OK!

Quote

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.
 

I agree with that. I'm with you so far!

Quote

The spycraft of the times eludes you. ... There are those who are so confused by spycraft that anything they don't see as logical and explainable as wrong.
 

That's a rather cryptic statement. I suspect that you are referring to one of your previous comments, directed at Tracy ( http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/&do=findComment&comment=350178 ):

Quote

Are you of the opinion that the intelligence community could not create a scar which appears like a mastoid operation? Or that two kids in the US in the mid 40's could not both have a mastoidectomy?
 

Ah. I think I understand now! You don't go into detail, perhaps wisely, but you seem to be claiming that the mastoidectomy bone defect on the body in Oswald's grave, as reported by a group of medical specialists, is evidence that "the intelligence community" had had an unnecessary mastoidectomy performed on the imaginary impostor, 'Harvey', by an imaginary surgeon in an imaginary hospital, as part of a hugely elaborate scheme in the remote hope that when the imaginary boy grew up he would turn out to resemble another six-year-old boy, who happened to have a mother with the same name as the imaginary boy. Well, I suppose the bone defect could be interpreted that way. We can't rule that out.

It could also be interpreted in all sorts of other ways. For example, it could be interpreted as evidence that the medical specialists who examined the body deliberately misrepresented the condition of the body, falsely reporting that a bone defect existed, in order to mislead the public about the existence of the 'Harvey and Lee (and Marguerite and Marguerite)' impostor scheme, and that they did this for some reason known only to their overlords, the giant lizards who went on to have Princess Diana murdered. I mean, we're not ruling anything out here, are we? If we're going to invent ridiculously elaborate impostor schemes for which the only real evidence is decades-old recollections, trivial anomalies in documents, and the subjective interpretation of photographs, and if we're going to invent mastoidectomies performed on imaginary characters according to the instructions of "the intelligence community", for which not a single piece of documentary evidence has been put forward, adding a giant lizard or two won't diminish the credibility of the theory much further.

Alternatively, the existence of the bone defect can be interpreted as evidence that one real, historical person, Lee Harvey Oswald, underwent a mastoidectomy for genuine medical reasons at the age of six, learned Russian in his teens, was murdered not by giant lizards but by Jack Ruby, and was buried in Rose Hill Cemetery, Fort Worth.

Hmm. I wonder which of those three interpretations most closely matches the way the world actually works?