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

[Thomas Graves]

3 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Putting this here.  It's obvious there's no clone - it's the same person who had a mastoid, grew up in TX, lived in NYC, was in the military, went to Russia, came back, was gunned down by Ruby, and was buried in the coffin, the same one that was exhumed years. End of story.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxNW11S3NkSGNRbXc

I agree with you, Mikey.

--  Tommy

[Sandy Larsen]

50 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You may be right, Tommy.

I compared my list of Harvey's and Lee's with David Josephs' list and they were Identical or almost identical. However, I have a number of disagreements with whomever it was who wrote the captions for the Evolution of Oswald poster.

Sandy,

Not sure I understand.  (What else is new, right?)

I may be right about what?

 

You may have been right when you wrote:

(I've got a sneakin' hunch that the "undecided" photos [Harvey vs. Lee] will comprise a very large group, indeed.)

which I understood to mean that there are a lot of photos that could go either way, Harvey or Lee.

I say that because whomever wrote the captions for that Harvey& Lee collage disagrees with my decision on a number of photos in the collage.

 

50 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

I don't want to sound overly pedantic, but I think it should be "whoever" in that sentence.

No, that's quite alright... pedant away!   (Pardon my verbification.)

As a rule, I fall back on descriptive grammar when the proper grammar either 1) sounds funny (to me), or 2) seems overly complicated (to me). As an engineer I understand the need for rules. But as a nonconformist, I understand the need for chilling out.

Anyway, you very well may be right. I had actually written "whoever" first, and then changed it to "whomever," thinking the word was supposed to agree with "it was" which follows "whomever" in the sentence. Here's the phrase in question:

"whomever it was who wrote the captions"

If I rearrange the first three words, I get

"it was whomever who wrote the captions"

and then remove the clause, I get

"it was whomever"

which is like saying "it was him" or "it was her." Which sounds right.

If I were to change "whomever" to "whoever," then it would be like saying "it was he" or "it was she." Which doesn't sound right.

Object = it
Verb = was
Subject = he

That can''t be right, can it? I mean... I mean... I mean... saying "it was he" would be like saying "it hit he." And everybody knows that is wrong!

Oh, but as a prescriptive grammarian, you'll probably come back with a complicated rule... saying that the the verb "was" (past tense of "be") is a special case. Its object is in the nominative case rather than usual accusative case for other verbs. Therefore "it was he" is correct. And so "it was whoever" is correct.

See, this is one of those cases where the prescriptive rule is overly complicated, in my judgement. I should have gone with my descriptive grammar (which was, by accident, proper) rather than trying to apply the prescriptive rule.

I mean... I mean... I mean...

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Note the fast-developing widow’s peak in the hairline of Lee Oswald over a period of just a few years.

Tracy Parnell claims this is just the result of a “high and tight” military haircut.  To see what a “high and tight” cut really looks like, CLICK HERE.

Is that really the same man killed by Jack Ruby?
 

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Jim Hargrove

[Michael Walton]

Jim watch the GIF I put up. The brows match the nose the ears even the chin.

The images in your graphic are a mess copies of copies. Why would  you  ever try to compare a person's  features with them?

The GIF I  made uses clear images and include  one that  you  claim is a clone. But it merely shows the same person aging  from  1956 to 1963.

Any investigatory  body would easily  dismiss  the images you're  using  as garbage.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Michael Walton

[Thomas Graves]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

You may have been right when you wrote:

(I've got a sneakin' hunch that the "undecided" photos [Harvey vs. Lee] will comprise a very large group, indeed.)

which I understood to mean that there are a lot of photos that could go either way, Harvey or Lee.

I say that because whomever wrote the captions for that Harvey& Lee collage disagrees with my decision on a number of photos in the collage.

..........................

[...]

I had actually written "whoever" first, and then changed it to "whomever"

 

Sandy,

In my humble opinion, by changing it to "whomever" from your original, correct (imho) "whoever," you ended up sounding falsely intellectual, kinda like the-one-and-only Lee Harvey Oswald did from time to time.  LOL

But don't feel badly (or is it bad?), I've always had problems with pronouns, too.  It would be so much easier, I suppose, if English were a more highly inflected (look it up) language like Czech, or Polish, or (gasp) Russian.  But then, instead of having to struggle with pronouns, I'd have to struggle with figuring out which prefix or suffix to put on the root word, you know, depending on whether it was being used in a nominative, or a genitive, or a dative, or a locative, or an accusative, or an instrumental, or a vocative kind of way.  And worst of all, I'd really have to struggle to figure out what people were saying to me in a social situation, given the fact that all those different prefixes and suffixes make the root word sound so different as to be unrecognizable (to me at least) when spoken at anything faster than a snail's pace.

To sum it all up, my having to do that for seven years in the Czech Republic caused me to feel very badly, to the bone, indeed.

--  Tommy

PS  If there is a large group of "undecided" "Harvey and Lee" photos, and many of them go back before 1956, it argues for three possible explanations, imho -- one kinda "normal", and two really, really paranoiac ones:

1 )  The vast majority of the photos that "could go either way" were actually all of the same "Oswald," be it "Harvey", or "Lee".  As long as these photos don't go back before 1956 or so, they might support Jon G. Tidd's theory that the Oswald "Double Project" started only when "Harvey" (the guy who ended up being killed by Jack Ruby on 11/24/63) joined the Marines.

2 )  Many of the "undecided" photos were altered by the bad guys to make the two easy-to-differentiate guys look virtually identical.

3 )  [Relax!  I'm working on it.  I haven't had my coffee yet.]  Oh yeah!  HARVEY AND LEE AND THE TWO MARGUERITES REALLY DID GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO 1947 OR SO.  [It's amazing what a little caffeine can do.]

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[W. Tracy Parnell]

51 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Tracy Parnell claims this is just the result of a “high and tight” military haircut.

Right, that's exactly what you see in the photo by Robert. it is a terrible image, but that is the haircut he would have had after boot camp in 1957 not 1958 as Armstrong claims.

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

[W. Tracy Parnell]

29 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Jim watch the GIF I put up. The brows match the nose the ears even the chin.

The images in your graphic are a mess copies of copies. Why would  you  ever try to compare a person's  features with them?

The GIF I  made uses clear images and include  one that  you  claim is a clone. But it merely shows the same person aging  from  1956 to 1963.

Any investigatory  body would easily  dismiss  the images you're  using  as garbage.

Good job with that Michael and it shows one man clearly as you say.

[David Josephs]

On ‎4‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 4:14 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

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.

Do you suppose it's possible to address the topic without all the sarcasm?

What did or did not happen is well beyond your ability to parse Jeremy... unless you're an ex-spy with experience in the craft....
You or anyone else being incredulous about the possibilities does not make them any less likely or possible.

We have a rich history of conspiracy, futile attempts at spycraft, successful attempts at spycraft and all the spycraft for which we are not aware.  That you cannot fathom something being done, when the available evidence supports the conclusion, only shows me you'd rather stick with circular arguments than consider something outside your comfort zone.

Your acceptance or understanding of the magnitude of the information is not something I give a rats xxx about Jeremy.  Just like those who prefer to argue that Oswald did what he was accused of, no amount of discussion will crack that nut nor open your eyes enough to explore the evidence.

But please don't insult our collective intelligence with posts that sound like poor versions of Tommy's famous "wit"  as you butcher the realities of our intelligence history and wax philosophical over data and analysis that remains out of your reach.

Read the book, do the work, then come talk to me...  right now you're like one of those blind men feeling an elephant and calling it a tree.  Until the blinders come off and you attempt to look at an entire picture your conclusions will remain half-assed...

Finally, if you're interested in those who spent time with LEE in the Marines I'd suggest you look into Richard Bullock...  a man who was with LEE and compare his evidence with Allen Felde's.  In fact Felde's statement comes right after the Marine's detailed chronology for Oswald...  The stories don't match and then the FBI goes and finds the wrong Felde... 

 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2018 by David Josephs

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Do you suppose it's possible to address the topic without all the sarcasm?

What did or did not happen is well beyond your ability to parse Jeremy... unless you're an ex-spy with experience in the craft....
You or anyone else being incredulous about the possibilities does not make them any less likely or possible.

We have a rich history of conspiracy, futile attempts at spycraft, successful attempts at spycraft and all the spycraft for which we are not aware.  That you cannot fathom something being done, when the available evidence supports the conclusion, only shows me you'd rather stick with circular arguments than consider something outside your comfort zone.

Your acceptance or understanding of the magnitude of the information is not something I give a rats ass about Jeremy.  Just like those who prefer to argue that Oswald did what he was accused of, no amount of discussion will crack that nut nor open your eyes enough to explore the evidence.

But please don't insult our collective intelligence with posts that sound like poor versions of Tommy's famous "wit"  as you butcher the realities of our intelligence history and wax philosophical over data and analysis that remains out of your reach.

Read the book, do the work, then come talk to me...  right now you're like one of those blind men feeling an elephant and calling it a tree.  Until the blinders come off and you attempt to look at an entire picture your conclusions will remain half-assed...

Finally, if you're interested in those who spent time with LEE in the Marines I'd suggest you look into Richard Bullock...  a man who was with LEE and compare his evidence with Allen Felde's.  In fact Felde's statement comes right after the Marine's detailed chronology for Oswald...  The stories don't match and then the FBI goes and finds the wrong Felde... 

 

 

More hot, steamin', stinkin' ... uh ..... "spaghetti"

(Commonly found on the walls in mental hospitals, I'm told.)

--  Tommy

Edited April 14, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

I'm sorry tommy...

Felde knew Harvey
Bullock knew Lee
The FBI covered it up...

Simple enough even for you now... 

[Thomas Graves]

3 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

I'm sorry tommy...

Felde knew Harvey
Bullock knew Lee
The FBI covered it up...

Simple enough even for you now... 

Bollocks,

joseph.

--  Tommy

Edited April 14, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

awww, tommy got his feelings hurt   

Your "Bollocks" be about the only thing you have a handle on here...  

So, I'll keep trying to dumb it down for you....   Y'know so you can read along and keep up with the rest of us...  

 

[Thomas Graves]

30 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

awww, tommy got his feelings hurt   

Your "Bollocks" be about the only thing you have a handle on here...  

So, I'll keep trying to dumb it down for you....   Y'know so you can read along and keep up with the rest of us...  

 

And you accuse Jeremy of being sarcastic?

What a hypocritically bad joke you are, josephs.

--  Tommy

Edited April 14, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

6 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Sandy,

[...]

If there is a large group of "undecided" "Harvey and Lee" photos, and many of them go back before 1956, it argues for three possible explanations, imho -- one kinda "normal", and two really, really paranoiac ones:

1 )  The vast majority of the photos that "could go either way" were actually all of the same "Oswald," be it "Harvey", or "Lee".  As long as these photos don't go back before 1956 or so, they might even support Jon G. Tidd's theory that the Oswald "Double Project" started only when "Harvey" (the guy who ended up being killed by Jack Ruby on 11/24/63) joined the Marines.

2 )  Many of the "undecided" photos were altered by the bad guys to make the two easy-to-differentiate guys look virtually identical.

3 )  [Relax!  I'm working on it.  I haven't had my coffee yet.]  Oh yeah!  HARVEY AND LEE AND THE TWO MARGUERITES REALLY DID GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO 1947 OR SO.  [It's amazing what a little caffeine can do.]

--  Tommy

edited and bumped

Edited April 14, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Jim Hargrove]

4 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Do you suppose it's possible to address the topic without all the sarcasm?

What did or did not happen is well beyond your ability to parse Jeremy... unless you're an ex-spy with experience in the craft....
You or anyone else being incredulous about the possibilities does not make them any less likely or possible.

We have a rich history of conspiracy, futile attempts at spycraft, successful attempts at spycraft and all the spycraft for which we are not aware.  That you cannot fathom something being done, when the available evidence supports the conclusion, only shows me you'd rather stick with circular arguments than consider something outside your comfort zone.

Your acceptance or understanding of the magnitude of the information is not something I give a rats ass about Jeremy.  Just like those who prefer to argue that Oswald did what he was accused of, no amount of discussion will crack that nut nor open your eyes enough to explore the evidence.

But please don't insult our collective intelligence with posts that sound like poor versions of Tommy's famous "wit"  as you butcher the realities of our intelligence history and wax philosophical over data and analysis that remains out of your reach.

Read the book, do the work, then come talk to me...  right now you're like one of those blind men feeling an elephant and calling it a tree.  Until the blinders come off and you attempt to look at an entire picture your conclusions will remain half-assed...

Finally, if you're interested in those who spent time with LEE in the Marines I'd suggest you look into Richard Bullock...  a man who was with LEE and compare his evidence with Allen Felde's.  In fact Felde's statement comes right after the Marine's detailed chronology for Oswald...  The stories don't match and then the FBI goes and finds the wrong Felde... 

 

 

It's a fine idea showing some more examples of Harvey and Lee in the Marines.  I tend to concentrate too much on just the Taiwan/Japan episode and the U.S.S. Skagit because it is such a slam dunk, but there are other examples of the two Oswalds in the Marines, at least for the sporadic periods Harvey was placed there.  You graphics, as always, are beautifully done.  Thanks!