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

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Mathias,

Any lies Phillips might or might not have told could be explained by the fact that he may have believed he was protecting CIA secrets. We know from the experience with Helms that many "higher-ups" in the CIA considered it their duty to lie if they thought it was necessary to protect the agency. Helms, of course, was convicted of a crime for doing so and considered it a "badge of honor." But I believe that some of Phillips' apparent misstatements may be the result of incompetence. I believe that far from being a superhuman spy as he is often portrayed, Phillips may have been a mere mortal who made mistakes and tried to cover them up as in the case of Alvarado.

[David Josephs]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I'll let the readers here decide

Works for me...  be even better if you'd stop making definitive statements about the situation when you haven't the backing to support it...

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Just now, David Josephs said:

Works for me...  be even better if you'd stop making definitive statements about the situation when you haven't the backing to support it...

Such as?

[David Josephs]

Just now, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Such as?

Just start at page 1 of this thread and go... 

"you ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know" 
                                                                                       - Black Throated Wind

[W. Tracy Parnell]

If you're referring to the exhumation, that is a scientific fact. The results were published in a peer reviewed journal by a team of physicians. I studied the exhumation extensively and found no anomalies whatsoever aside from Paul Groody's discredited assertions. So, unfortunately for the H&L crowd, you are stuck with Jim's explanation of dual mastoid operations, which by the way, would have to have been administered when both boys were roughly the same age (less than 10 years) to avoid detection.

[David Josephs]

When you ever attempt to explain how 200 goes into 123 we can continue.

Until then you are simply avoiding a direct question.

Here are the 210 school days AGAIN... can you show us which 200 days he was both in attendance or absent...

or is that simply well beyond your abilities?

and yes... let the readers decide.... 

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by David Josephs

[Bernie Laverick]

This is a well worn tactic by Josephs, he just can't stop himself! They dig themselves into a hopeless little hole and then start shouting abuse at anyone who points out how utterly stupid you would have to be to believe any of this facile nonsense. But Josephs doesn't know anywhere near as much as Hargrove, Armstrong's preferred messenger boy, and that embarrasses him. So he turns to abuse and tells people to "man up". Really? In 2017 we still have grown men who think it's perfectly ok to regurgitate this type of pond-life sexism? To all the women who follow this forum my apologies on Josephs' behalf... 

I notice he also used the "COINTELPRO" nonsense. We have ALL been accused off that by Josephs. Imagine how fantastically delusional you would have to be to think that the CIA have sent dozens of its cointelpro operatives onto the Education Forum to counter what David Josephs is revealing!! You really aren't that important mister!

The H&L cult have many ways to deflect and confuse the issues, information dumps, ones that we have all seen a thousand times before, changing the subject when the going gets tough, honest 'mistakes' (all of which are in their favour!) but when they are called out on them all, as they are repeatedly, they turn to abuse. Repeatedly. It is totally pointless arguing with them. There are more than enough counter arguments out there and the theory/fantasy has been well and truly debunked a thousand times over.

And now we have the planners carrying out a mastoid operation on a young lad in case one day his body is exhumed and the whole plot is discovered. But they have no problem sending 'Lee' out to go buy trucks using his real name while Harvey is in Russia... Ha ha ha!!! Priceless! Where was 'Lee' living during the time 'Harvey' was in Russia? Surely there must be some record somewhere of where he was living. But nope, they have nothing! Just an attempt to buy some trucks using his real name...

Only the disenfranchised and the hopelessly demoralised will fall for this anyway: but once they have, it has them in their grip for life. The H&L book is spoken of in the same manner befitting of a fundamentalist ChristianMuslim talking of their book. We, the "non believers" need crushing. Yes, that's what they actually call us. "Non believers". It's really quite scary.

In twenty years Armstrong's H&L has made absolutely no impact whatsoever on the investigation into the assassination of JFK, and it has recruited less than a dozen converts! We give them the oxygen they don't deserve. We are to blame for this nonsense. I don't argue with flat-earthers so why do I waste my time with this? I really don't know. All it does is push the topic further up the reading list. We should now just leave them alone and let them play.

The crux is this. Did 'Harvey' look similar enough to Lee that many people mistook one for the other? Bearing in mind that a huge part of the H&L evidence relies on witnesses saying they saw Lee when he couldn't possibly have been there. So they must have looked similar if not identical. How did the planners know that this would happen when they were recruited as children? (Now watch them desperately try and disprove they looked anything like each other, even though the 'sightings' are the very foundation for their entire theory!)

Ok, what's it going to be? Abuse? Cool, I couldn't care less. Info dump on Taiwan? Oh please, not again! Sloping shoulders? Manipulated photos? School records? It's all a circus isn't it? But hey, it ties people down, and it discredits reputable and credible researchers by being tarred with this brush and other such ridiculous theories, like Aliens made Jackie do it etc... It's significant that they have done absolutely nothing with all this 'evidence'! NOTHING! No attempt to place the theory anywhere but these types of forums and among other JFK researchers. That says everything.

One thing is for absolute certain. They will NOT address what I have written in bold above. It is the Kryptonite that kills this cartoon story. And they know it!

 

 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Is this your pitiful attempt to divide and conquer, Bernie? 

To see David Joseph's in-depth knowledge of the Kennedy Case, all you need to do is look at his articles published on Jim DiEugenio's Kennedys and King website.  They are breathtaking in their detail.  I especially enjoyed his series on Mexico City, which you no doubt are totally unaware of.
 

[Jim Hargrove]

Mr. Bojczuk opines....

When I suggested to Mr. Bojczuk that Fred Sewell's interview with Jim Garrison and assistant district attorney James Alcock was more reliable, and far more complete, than the brief FBI report that didn't even indicate Oscar Deslatte's exact words, Mr. Bojczuk declared the FBI report was more reliable. To reinforce this, he wrote:

We are to believe the FBI report. There are two reasons to believe that Sewell's account is less reliable than Deslatte's. Firstly, Sewell's account was given several years later than Deslatte's. Secondly, one claim that Sewell made is demonstrably wrong: that Deslatte wrote the full name 'Lee Oswald' on the paperwork. The paperwork contains only the name 'Oswald'.

Remarkably, Mr. Bojczuk gets even this simple fact wrong.  From the Garrison transcript:

JG: Did it have "OSWALD" on it or "LEE OSWALD"? Do you
remember looking at it?

FS: I can't remember that. It's been six years but I know
that the man who identified himself as OSWALD was in the
office and made that remark. Now, I do know that.

One must wonder where Mr. Bojczuk's faith in the FBI's role in the so-called investigation can possibly come from.  It's work has been a disgrace, and we now know that it was held in disrepute even by members of the Warren Commission.

Writing in the November 21, 2016 edition of Consortiumnews.com, Dr. Gary Aguilar summarized what even members of the Warren Commission and the HSCA felt about the FBI's betrayal of the public trust in the Kennedy assassination aftermath: 

“What was significant,” Blakey determined, “was the ability of the FBI to intimidate the Commission, in light of the Bureau’s predisposition on the questions of Oswald’s guilt and whether there had been a conspiracy. At a January 27 [1964] Commission meeting, there was another dialogue [among Warren Commissioners]:

“John McCloy: ‘… the time is almost overdue for us to have a better perspective of the FBI investigation than we now have … We are so dependent on them for our facts … .’

“Commission counsel J. Lee Rankin: ‘Part of our difficulty in regard to it is that they have no problem. They have decided that no one else is involved … .’

“Senator Richard Russell: ‘They have tried the case and reached a verdict on every aspect.’

“Senator Hale Boggs: ‘You have put your finger on it.’ (Closed Warren Commission meeting.)” [Blakey & Billings, Fatal Hour– The Assassination of President. See also: North, Act of Treason]

Testifying before the HSCA, the Warren Commission’s chief counsel J. Lee Rankin shamefully admitted, “Who could protest against what Mr. Hoover did back in those days?” Apparently not President Lyndon Johnson’s blue-ribbon commissioners.

The HSCA’s Blakey also reported that “When asked if he was satisfied with the (Commission’s) investigation that led to the (no conspiracy) conclusion, Judge Burt Griffin (a Commission staff member) said he was not.” [Blakey & Billings, Ibid.]

Mr. Bojczuk REALLY want us to believe the FBI report on Deslatte over the Garrison transcript of Fred Sewell’s interview!  Well, let’s see some more about 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's faith in the FBI appears to be seriously misplaced!

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

James Norwood writes:

<blockquote>Other than the fact that President Kennedy was killed, what are some examples of those uncontested facts? I suspect that you will not be offering a single example in this discussion because you know very well that every major premise at the heart of the Warren Report has been called into question.</blockquote>

For Mr Norwood's benefit, here are a few of the "basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination" that can be found in the Warren Report:

1 - The assassination occurred in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas, USA, at approximately 12:30pm on Friday 22 November 1963 AD.
2 - President Kennedy died in Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas, USA.
4 - Governor Connally was wounded, and was operated on in Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas, USA.
5 - On the day of the assassination, someone calling himself Lee Harvey Oswald was working in the Texas School Book Depository, which is in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas, USA.
6 - The man who called himself Oswald was arrested approximately one hour and 20 minutes after the assassination, in the Texas Theater in Dallas, Texas, USA.
7 - The man who called himself Oswald was shot and killed two days after the assassination of President Kennedy, by a man who called himself Jack Ruby.

I'm sure that, if he tries hard, Mr Norwood can think of plenty more "basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination" that can be found in the Warren Report.

Mr Norwood states that "every major premise at the heart of the Warren Report has been called into question". I agree with him that plenty of what is in the Warren Report has been called into question, or contested. It may interest him to know that the word "contested" carries the opposite meaning to the word "uncontested". Because the particular items Mr Norwood was referring to are contested, and not uncontested, they do not fall into the category I was referring to when I wrote the phrase "basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination".

Does Mr Norwood seriously believe that because I accept some of what is in the Warren Report, namely the "basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination", I must also accept the contested elements of the Warren Report? I suspect he really does think this way, because he accused me on page 60 of this thread of having a "belief in the Warren Report" and of a "bias in favor in the findings of the Warren Report". Or perhaps he believes that anyone who opposes the nonsensical and harmful 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory must necessarily support the Warren Report's equally nonsensical and even more harmful lone-nut theory.

I asked Mr Norwood, politely, if he would provide some evidence to justify his accusation, but he has so far failed to do so. Let's try again. Mr Norwood, what evidence led you to conclude that I have a "belief in the Warren Report" and a "bias in favor in the findings of the Warren Report"?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove claims that I was mistaken when I wrote this:

<blockquote>one claim that Sewell made is demonstrably wrong: that Deslatte wrote the full name 'Lee Oswald' on the paperwork. The paperwork contains only the name 'Oswald'.</blockquote>

Jim then quotes an exchange between Fred Sewell and James Alcock, in which Sewell claims that he can't remember whether his colleague, Oscar Deslatte, wrote 'Oswald' or 'Lee Oswald' on the paperwork. Evidently, I must have been mistaken: Sewell did not in fact claim that Deslatte wrote the full name, 'Lee Oswald', on the paperwork.

But wait! What do we have here? It's something else from the Sewell/Alcock conversation:

- Alcock: Now, what was the name of the other man, the thin man? Did you ever see his name written on the bid?

- Sewell: I think that Oscar Deslatte wrote that on there, Lee Oswald, but he didn't use the Harvey, just Lee Oswald if I remember right.

- Alcock: Lee Oswald?

- Sewell: Yes, it's been six years of course.

The point I originally made still stands: Fred Sewell's recollection was faulty, and there is no reason to conclude that the man who visited the Bolton Ford dealership used the name 'Lee Oswald'.

There's a more important point to be made. It's conceivable that Jim wasn't aware of this part of the Sewell/Alcock conversation. We could put Jim's mistake down to ignorance, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead, were it not for one small, inconvenient fact. This part of the conversation is featured on Jim's own website: http://harveyandlee.net/JH PIX/61-04.jpg . That image was used by Jim on this very thread only a few days ago.

This sort of disgraceful behaviour tells us a lot about the mentality that's required in order to actively promote something as crazy as the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' fantasy. I presume that Jim doesn't even think there's anything wrong with his misleadingly selective use of the evidence. If it's in the service of a higher truth, anything goes. That's how every religious fundamentalist propagandist thinks.

As Bernie Laverick remarks in his excellent post, the Harvey and Lee cult has been going for a couple of decades and has only managed to convert a handful of acolytes. With all the material now out there on the web, in particular Greg Parker's forum and Tracy Parnell's website, the cult is unlikely to make very many more converts. Perhaps it is time to treat the Harvey and Lee cult in the same way most of us treat its equivalents: those who believe that the moon landings were faked or that the earth is flat.

For those casual readers who are interested in finding out more:

- https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13p30-the-harvey-lee-evidence

- http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/search/label/Harvey %26 Lee

[Jim Hargrove]

Mr. Bojczuk cherry picks his quotes and doesn't even bother to read the full transcript of the Garrison's interview with Fred Sewell.  In it, Mr. Sewell makes abundantly clear that the can't remember for sure whether "Oswald" or "Lee Oswald" was written on the bid, although he did "remember the men." It should be noted that the FBI took Oswald's bid form immediately after it was located at Bolton Ford. Here's the relevant excerpt, emphasis added:

JG: Do you ever recollect he said LEE OSWALD.

FS: I think LEE OSWALD, and I think OSCAR wrote it down. Or
that may be - it's been six years I may be wrong. If you
have that paper you know. I can't remember that long. But
I remember the men. So then when the President was assas-
inated and the name came out, OSCAR come in either the nex
morning or the morning after and and said, "Say Fred, do
you remember those two guys who was in here from Cuba
trying to get some buses cheap?" and I said,"Yes". He sai
"I think that one of those men was the one who killed the
President." I said, "Aw your kidding" and he said "We've
got a piece of paper around here somewhere with a bid on
it." He went and hauled that piece of paper out and the
OSCAR called the F.B.I.

JG: Did it have "OSWALD" on it or "LEE OSWALD"? Do you
remember looking at it?

FS: I can't remember that. It's been six years but I know
that the man who identified himself as OSWALD was in the
office and made that remark. Now, I do know that.

Mr. Bojczuk ignores the specificity of the information provided above by Fred Sewell and goes on, as usual, to explain how awful I am.  Mr. Bojczuk then writes the following remarkable sentence: "Fred Sewell's recollection was faulty, and there is no reason to conclude that the man who visited the Bolton Ford dealership used the name 'Lee Oswald'."

Mr. Bojczuk probably wrote those words with a straight face, even though he wasn't at the Bolton Ford dealership and Fred Sewell was.  Mr. Bojczuk chooses his words carefully, but does he REALLY believe that LEE OSWALD wasn't at the Bolton Ford dealership?  To do so, of course, he must pretend he doesn't know that officers of the "Friends of Democratic Cuba" organization written on the bid included none other than Guy Banister and Oswald's former employer Gerard Tugague.  Gerard Tugague employed Oswald in late 1955 and early 1956 at the 300 Sanlin Building in New Orleans.

 

 

Mr. Bojczuk desperately wants us to believe that it was some other "Oswald" at Bolton Ford, but he knows that the FBI knew better.  It clearly understood that the "SUBJECT: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" had been to the Bolton Ford dealership seeking trucks for Cuba, and the issue was alarming enough to end an airtel directly to J. Edgar Hoover himself.

 

As always, Mr. Bojczuk concludes his post with links to other sites, saying the truth about the Bolton Ford incident is there.  But the truth isn't there. The truth about the Bolton Ford incident is here:

http://harveyandlee.net/Misc/Bolton.html

[Sandy Larsen]

23 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

On 8/30/2017 at 10:40 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Okay, show us that. So we can tear it to pieces.

You have been provided the links to Parker's website many times. You can follow the links, you do not need to be "shown."

And you are the one telling readers that Parker has shown that the school records do NOT indicate that Oswald had to have been attending two schools spontaneously.

What I am doing here is demonstrating to the reader that you have no idea how Parker's arguments achieve that goal.

You shouldn't post links to argument and claim they prove or indicate something when in fact they do not. That's dishonest. And I'm calling you on it.

My $1000 offer stands. Show us how Parker's arguments do what you claim they do.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And you are the one telling readers that Parker has shown that the school records do NOT indicate that Oswald had to have been attending two schools spontaneously.

What I am doing here is demonstrating to the reader that you have no idea how Parker's arguments achieve that goal.

You shouldn't post links to argument and claim they prove or indicate something when in fact they do not. That's dishonest. And I'm calling you on it.

My $1000 offer stands. Show us how Parker's arguments do what you claim they do.

 

Your "$1000 offer" is a load of bull and everyone here knows it. Who is going to decide who has proven their case and gets the money-you? Silly. As for Parker, he has shown how the records are being misread.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Bernie,

Nice to see you posting here again. At this point in time, I have bigger fish to fry than H&L, but I do pop in from time to time when I see Jim or David try to slip something by readers who might be unaware of the facts.