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

[Jim Hargrove]

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I'll pay you $1000 to debunk the "Oswald was in two schools simultaneously" evidence. Here in this thread. Or in a thread dedicated to your debunking.

(The funny thing about this is that you have to debunk the evidence itself, not the theory. Because the evidence IS the theory. LOL. It would be like me offering to pay you $1000 to debunk a "sun is rising" theory where the evidence is a video of the sun rising. LOL.)

Fascinating!  Doubt you'll get any takers, and if you do I doubly doubt they'll ever admit their utter failure, but fail they will.   Your support is appreciated.

[Jim Hargrove]

This thread began when an H&L critic made fun of our contention that Lee HARVEY Oswald spoke far better Russian than he should have according to his official biography.  The H&L critics clearly thought we were supposed to believe their opinions over the opinion of Yale University Slavic Language Department head Vladimir Petrov, who wrote that a letter supposedly written by Harvey Oswald was actually "written by a Russian with an imperfect knowledge of English."

And, of course, we're supposed to believe that, while reading Russian magazines with a Russian-English dictionary in his spare time in the Marine Corps, and while working full time in a factory in Minsk and taking only a handful of language language tutoring session, Harvey Oswald learned to write Russian like this:

And, of course, we're supposed to assume that the H&L critics know more about Harvey Oswald's Russian abilities than his friend George De Mohrenschildt, a Russian immigrant who wrote the following in his manuscript entitled "I AM A PATSY! I AM A PATSY":

Incidentally I never saw him interested in anything else except Russian
books and magazines . He said he didn't want to forget the language -
but it amazed me that he read such difficult writers like Gorki, Dostoevski,
Gogol, Tolstoi and Turgenieff - in Russian. As everyone knows Russian is
a complex language and he was supposed to have stayed in the Soviet Union
only a little over two years. He must have had some previous training and
that point had never been brought up by the Warren Committee - and it is
still puzzling to me. In my opinion Lee was a very bright person but not
a genius. He never mastered the English language yet he learned such a dif-
icult language! I taught Russian at all level in a large University, and
I never saw such a profficiency in the best senior students who constantly
listened to  Russian tapes and spoke to Russian friends . As a matter of
fact American-born instructors never mastered Russian spoken language as
well as Lee did.

No doubt we're also supposed to believe the opinions of H&L critics over the opinions of other Russian immigrants around Dallas who met Harvey Oswald and shared their thoughts:

Natalie Ray was asked by Commission attorney Wesley Liebeler, "Did he (Oswald) speak to you in Russian?" Mrs. Ray replied, "Yes; just perfect; re­ally surprised me ... it's just too good speaking Russian for be such a short time, you know.... I said, 'How come you speak so good Russian? I been here so long and still don't speak very well English."

Mrs. Teofil (Anna) Meller was asked by Liebeler, "Do you think that his com­mand of the Russian language was better than you would expect for the period of time that he had spent in Russia?" Mrs. Meller replied, "Yes; absolutely better than I would expect."

Peter Gregory told Warren Commission Representative Gerald Ford, "I thought that Lee Oswald spoke (Russian) with a Polish accent, that is why I asked him if he was of Polish decent."

And on and on.  No doubt H&L critics want us to believe that Harvey Oswald's Russian fluency was a natural result of his self-study in the Marines and his two and a half years in the USSR, but I don't believe it, and I think a whole lot of people without an axe to grind in this debate won't believe it either.  And I haven't even mentioned above Harvey Oswald's obvious familiarity with the Russian language before he even "defected" to the Soviet Union.  
 

[James Norwood]

7 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Jeremy is not a "lone nutter." See his website:

http://22november1963.org.uk/

 

I pulled up and read the home page on Jeremy Bojczuk's website.  In the first footnote to his home page article, Jeremy writes the following:

"The basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination can be found in the Warren Report."

It has been a matter of never-ending debate to determine just how many "uncontested facts" are to be found in the Warren Report.  It is obvious from Jeremy's reactions to Jim Hargrove's extremely detailed commentaries about Oswald that Jeremy's belief in the Warren Report is being challenged by the evidence uncovered by John Armstrong.  It is easy to follow Jeremy's posts on this thread to discern a bias in favor in the findings of the Warren Report. 

The main thesis of the Warren Report is that Oswald shot JFK.  But that is not an "uncontested fact."  In an ideal world, it would be nice to be able to trust the loyal officials of our government who prepared this report and believe this document comprises a set of "uncontested facts" of the JFK assassination.  Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world.

In reading Jeremy's posts, I am unable to discern any "uncontested facts" that he is able to marshal in support his criticism of Jim Hargrove. 

 

Specifically, what are those "uncontested facts" about Oswald from the Warren Report?

Edited August 30, 2017 by James Norwood

[W. Tracy Parnell]

50 minutes ago, James Norwood said:

Specifically, what are those "uncontested facts" about Oswald from the Warren Report?

I don't pretend to know Jeremy's position on all of the issues relating to the JFK assassination. But if you study his website or his book, you will quickly see that he is skeptical of the "official version" of the assassination. Two of the biggest critics of the H&L theory are David Lifton and Greg Parker. Both have written extensively on the subject and both are clearly CTs. So any effort trying to paint anyone critical of the absurd H&L theory as a "lone nutter" is nonsense.

[James Norwood]

Tracy,

You are not responding to my question.  In fact, you are dodging the question. 

You seem to be familiar with Jeremy's website and book to the degree that you have taken the time to write an apology for him on this thread. 

So, what are the "uncontested facts" about Oswald from the Warren Report adduced by Jeremy?  I'm not asking for Jeremy's position on "all" of the issues related to the JFK assassination, only those on Oswald.

And also, what do you believe are the uncontested facts, if any, about Oswald?

[Jim Hargrove]

Welcome, Mr. Norwood!  It's good to see you here.  Hope you find the time to stay for a while.

[James Norwood]

An Update on Marita Lorenz

The fascinating topic of Marita Lorenz has been mentioned earlier in this thread.  I recently learned from a close acquaintance of hers that Marita is adamantly opposed to the production of the Jennifer Lawrence film biography.  The project may be shelved.  

Marita now resides in Costa Rica.  She left New York around the time the Jennifer Lawrence film was announced. The reason why she left the country may have nothing to do with her sensational love affair with Castro and everything to do with Oswald and the potential public exposure she could receive from a feature film on her life.  For years, she has been flying under the radar living in New York with her son serving as a watchdog against researchers and interviewers.   Based on her experiences, Marita Lorenz has to know about the two Oswalds. 

As discussed on this thread, Marita testified under oath before the HSCA that she knew Lee Harvey Oswald at a time when another Lee Harvey Oswald was residing in the Soviet Union.  She had no plausible reason to lie about this, and she was even threatened with charges of perjury when she would not disavow her testimony.  As discussed in depth by Jim Hargrove in his Bolton Ford posts above, the Oswald involved in the fleet transaction of trucks was a right-wing anti-Communist.  By contrast, the man concurrently residing in the Soviet Union had conceived the persona of a left-wing Marxist sympathizer.  The only way to make sense of a substantial body of conflicting primary evidence is to understand the existence of the two Oswalds.

Marita Lorenz may be the most important individual still living who has the potential to set the record straight about Harvey and Lee.  Occasionally, participants on this forum refer to the two Oswalds as a "theory."  But throughout John Armstrong's 900+ page book, he does not discuss theory.  Rather, he presents incontrovertible, hard evidence for two men, one who answered to the name of "Lee" and one who answered to the name of "Harvey."  That is not theory; it is fact.

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

I already debunked the schools thing...

Prove it! Show us your debunking... if you dare!

 

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Actually, it is Jeremy who is closed minded. The fact that he's a lone nutter alone proves that.

Jeremy is not a "lone nutter." See his website:

http://22november1963.org.uk/

Yes, you're right. I thought he was a lone nutter. I stand corrected.

 

[James Norwood]

You guys are getting mired in a pointless discussion of who may be a "Lone Nutter" versus who is a "Conspiracy Theorist." 

These threads should be about identifying and interpreting facts, as opposed to assigning labels, assailing fellow researchers, and "debunking" valid ideas.

Jeremy has written that there are "uncontested facts" presented in the Warren Report.  For this thread concerning Oswald, I am curious to learn what are the uncontested facts presented in the Warren Report about Oswald? 

Can we find a common ground of factual information about Oswald?

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

So any effort trying to paint anyone critical of the absurd H&L theory as a "lone nutter" is nonsense.

Just to be clear, I don't do that and I've never seen anybody else do that.

I thought that Jeremy was a lone nutter because some of the things he writes are consistent with his being one. Like when he wrote, "The basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination can be found in the Warren Report." He really should qualify that statement to make it clear that the alleged "facts" presented in the WR aren't all uncontested. In fact, as far as I can tell, the majority are contested.

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

<blockquote>I'll pay you $1000 to debunk the "Oswald was in two schools simultaneously" evidence.</blockquote>

There is a perfectly credible explanation for the apparent inconsistency in Oswald's school records, an explanation which Sandy (and Jim, of course) has so far failed to discuss, presumably because it doesn't require him to believe in a hugely implausible multi-year conspiracy. It can be found here:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records

It was written by Greg Parker, who lives in Australia. When Sandy makes the payment, he might bear in mind that the current exchange rate is roughly 1.25 Australian dollars to one US dollar.

I'm curious to discover what led Sandy to conclude that I was a "lone nutter". On this forum and elsewhere, I have argued against:

- The extreme conspiracy theory that President Kennedy's body was intercepted by an unnamed gang of conspirators without anyone on Air Force One noticing, and then surgically altered to hide evidence that all the shots came from the front, even the shot which hit Governor Connally in the back.

- The extreme conspiracy theory that the Zapruder film was substantially altered to conceal evidence which contradicted the lone-nut theory, despite the fact that the allegedly altered film contains strong evidence contradicting that theory, and despite expert opinion that any substantial alteration to the film would be impossible to conceal.

- The extreme conspiracy theory that in order to conceal evidence of Oswald standing on the Book Depository's steps, the Altgens 6 photograph was altered by superimposing over Oswald's face the face of someone who looked so much like Oswald that it generated the claim that Oswald was standing on the Book Depository's steps.

- The extreme conspiracy theory that two unrelated boys were inducted into a top-secret 'Oswald project' at the age of 12, along with their mothers, each of whom happened to be named Marguerite, in the hope that when the unrelated boys grew up they would turn out to look either identical or merely similar, depending on the needs of the crazy theory at any particular moment.

- And the relatively credible theory that President Kennedy was killed to prevent him telling the Soviet regime that little green men from the planet Zog were living among us.

How does Sandy reconcile opposition to extreme conspiracy theories with support for the lone-nut theory? There is a good reason why someone who opposes the lone-nut theory might want to prevent the spread of extreme conspiracy theories. Can he work out what it is?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

As for James Norwood, he really needs to learn how to read. When he has done that, he needs to learn how to think. I used the words, "basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination", not "basic, uncontested facts about Oswald". There are basic, uncontested facts about the JFK assassination, and the Warren Report is as good a place as any to find them. It should be obvious to anyone who, unlike Mr Norwood, has delved beyond the first footnote that I believe that the Warren Report contains plenty of claims that can legitimately be contested.

James Norwood writes:

<blockquote>It is obvious ... that Jeremy's belief in the Warren Report is being challenged ... It is easy to follow Jeremy's posts on this thread to discern a bias in favor in the findings of the Warren Report.</blockquote>

Is it? Only for someone who is unable to think clearly. Perhaps Mr Norwood would be kind enough to provide details about which of my posts here support my "belief in the Warren Report" and my "bias in favor in the findings of the Warren Report".

Mr Norwood seems to be implying that opposition to extreme conspiracy theories such as the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory equals support for the lone-nut theory. If that is what he believes, could he explain the reasoning behind it? As I wrote earlier, there is a good reason why someone who opposes the lone-nut theory might want to prevent the spread of extreme conspiracy theories. Can Mr Norwood work out what it is?

He also writes:

<blockquote>Marita Lorenz may be the most important individual still living who has the potential to set the record straight about Harvey and Lee.</blockquote>

Marita Lorenz and Harvey and Lee! Oh dear. I wonder how many of the other extreme conspiracy theories I mentioned in my previous post Mr Norwood finds credible.

[Michael Walton]

15 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

n fact, most of the vocal critics of the theory are CT people such as yourself, Jeremy,  Parker and Lifton.

Thanks Tracy what I  find truly remarkable  about Larsen's  "because he's  a  lone nutter" statement  is the fact that all along he's  professed here to be a cold and calculating by the book evidence man who's  supposedly  still on the fence if there was a conspiracy.

Yet and amazingly his so called fact finding  is colored because he thought someone here rebutting this silly story was NOT a CT supporter!

I sure wouldn't  want  someone  like  that  on my investigation  team LOL

[Jim Hargrove]

23 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

In his latest screed, Mr. Bojczuk spends far more time explaining how horrible and biased I am than he does discussing the actual evidence.  After declaring, again and again, how Greg Parker has explained all this, he finally does get to a small part of the evidence, however briefly.

Here is Mr. Bojczuk’s entire stab at debunking the significance of the Bolton Ford incident: 

The earliest account of the Bolton Ford incident, by Oscar Deslatte, mentions someone called 'Oswald', and specifically denies that a first name was given. Jim, following scripture, ignores this and prefers the account from several years later, in which Fred Sewell, who did not deal directly with the man named Oswald, recalled that the man gave the first name 'Lee' and that Deslatte wrote the full name, 'Lee Oswald', on the paperwork.

But the paperwork only contains the name 'Oswald'. Unless the FBI tampered with its report of Deslatte's interview and with the Bolton Ford paperwork (I'm afraid I may be putting ideas in Jim's head here), Sewell's recollection was faulty. Sewell was wrong to claim that the man gave the name 'Lee Oswald'. Jim cites Sewell's unreliable evidence, which incorrectly ties 'Lee Oswald' with the incident, and simply ignores the evidence which shows Sewell to have been an unreliable witness.

By “earliest account of the Bolton Ford incident,” Mr. Bojczuk is referring to the FBI report of 11/25/63 buried in a lengthy Warren Commission document.  By suggesting that the report says Deslatte and the bid mentions only “Oswald” and not “Lee Oswald,” Mr. Bojczuk wants us to believe it could be referring to any old Oswald, say Francis Oswald, or Ezekial Oswald, or...   you get the picture.  Mr. Bojczuk wants us to believe that just about anyone other than “Lee Oswald” was being referred to.

Of course, this begs the question:  If Mr. Deslatte didn’t think it was “Lee Oswald,” why did he remember the incident two years later and why did he contact the FBI? 

Mr. Bojczuk fails to mention that the “Friends of Democratic Cuba” is listed on the Bolton form along with the name “Oswald.”  Mr. Bojczuk fails to acknowledge that among the officers of “Friends of Democratic Cuba” were none other than W. Guy Banister, who famously interacted with Lee HARVEY Oswald in New Orleans in 1963, and Gerard Tugague, Oswald’s EMPLOYER in 1956.  What a coincidence!

Mr. Bojczuk also fails to mention that, by Dec. 19, 1963, the SAC in New Orleans was already confirming directly to J. Edgar Hoover himself that a man named Charles Pearson, who was office manager at Graham Paper Company, had stated that his friend Oscar W. Deslatte, assistant manager of truck sales at Bolton Ford, had been contacted by Oswald about buying trucks.  Worse yet, the whole process of investigating the incident was prompted by a phone call from none other than Carlos Bringieur, the man who pretended to fight and then debate on the radio with “Lee HARVEY Oswald in August 1963 in New Orleans

 

The FBI report that Mr. Bojczuk is so enamored with specifically states that “DESLATTE was exhibited a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD.”  And yet, Deslatte’s boss, Fred Sewell, specifically denied that claim to Jim Garrison.  He said, “No.  They didn’t show us no pictures.”  And he said it several times.

 

 

So who are we to believe, the FBI report on Deslatte or the Garrison transcript of Fred Sewell’s interview.  Well, let’s see how reliable the FBI was in this case….

Here’s a brief three-minute YouTube movie proving how the FBI altered statements by crucial Dealey Plaza witnesses so that it could pin the blame solely on Lee Harvey Oswald.

 

 

 

Here’s an example of how the FBI had a procedure in place to materially alter the testimony of its own agents, even over the objections of Warren Commission attorneys:

 

 

And here’s my favorite:

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.” FBI agent James Cadigan inadvertently spilled the bean about the secret transfer during his sworn WC testimony, which was altered by the WC.
 

 

Mr. Bojczuk wrote:

Unless the FBI tampered with its report of Deslatte's interview and with the Bolton Ford paperwork (I'm afraid I may be putting ideas in Jim's head here)....

It is obvious to any fair observer of this case that the FBI tampered with evidence in a major way.

Mr. Bojczuk apparently is unable to respond to the above.   He'd rather, as always, just post links to Greg Parker, pretending the answers are there.  Why is he so afraid to respond?