EVIDENCE FOR HARVEY AND LEE (Please debate the specifics right here. Don't just claim someone else has debunked it!)

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

He, like Mr. Parnell, is clearly afraid to discuss it.

One final time, nobody is "afraid" to discuss anything. We are sick to death of "discussing" your "evidence" because these discussions lead nowhere. You have been provided links to voluminous discussions right here at EF. You have been shown alternate explanations (which you have occasionally said do not exist even when provided links) time and time again but you reject them. As Jeremy said, you need to admit to yourself and everyone else that these alternate explanations are real.

John Armstrong attended a class on the assassination and was told by Gary Mack and Dave Perry that his evolving theory made no sense. Armstrong repaid them for trying to save him much time, trouble and money by trashing them in his book. Although he didn't name them, it was easy enough to figure out who they were. Armstrong, who is a wealthy individual, then set about the business of researching and creating his theory over a ten-year period. He could have developed a research guide or a website that detailed the information that he found. Instaed, he chose to create the ridiculous theory that he did one that, as Jeremy has pointed out, was debunked years before he wrote it. He then offered no explanation for that fact, instead hoping that nobody would notice his intellectual dishonesty.

The H&L theory exists because of discrepancies in the record and mistaken witnesses. Surely the H&L people will concede that errors are made by human beings. And, I have provided evidence that in any high profile case (as police and law enforcement officials know) there will be mistaken witnesses. There are over 300,000 records at Mary Ferrell alone that relate to JFK. That is certainly just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the available records. But for the sake of discussion, let's say there are half a million records related to JFK (there may well be more, I don't know). Let's also postulate a very conservative error rate in those records of one percent. It is probably much higher. Using my figures, that would give you 5000 documents that are in error. That is a lot of fodder for a theory like Armstrong's and you can begin to understand how those documents could be manipulated to show just about any "fact" if studied in the absence of other information.

The only ones who seem to be afraid are the H&L advocates. The purpose for creating this thread seems to have been to keep interest in the silly H&L theory alive. After all, the debunkers of the theory are a "bipartisan" group of Individuals-David Von Pein, Lance Payette and myself (and others) on the LN side and Greg Parker, David Lifton, Jeremy B. and numerous others on the CT side. So, Jim and other H&L people may be afraid that the theory is headed for the dustbin with several other "double Oswald" theories like those of Eddowes and Popkin. And, as far as I can tell, they are right.

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

One final time, nobody is "afraid" to discuss anything. We are sick to death of "discussing" your "evidence" because these discussions lead nowhere. You have been provided links to voluminous discussions right here at EF. You have been shown alternate explanations (which you have occasionally said do not exist even when provided links) time and time again but you reject them. As Jeremy said, you need to admit to yourself and everyone else that these alternate explanations are real.

John Armstrong attended a class on the assassination and was told by Gary Mack and Dave Perry that his evolving theory made no sense. Armstrong repaid them for trying to save him much time, trouble and money by trashing them in his book. Although he didn't name them, it was easy enough to figure out who they were. Armstrong, who is a wealthy individual, then set about the business of researching and creating his theory over a ten-year period. He could have developed a research guide or a website that detailed the information that he found. Instaed, he chose to create the ridiculous theory that he did one that, as Jeremy has pointed out, was debunked years before he wrote it. He then offered no explanation for that fact, instead hoping that nobody would notice his intellectual dishonesty.

The H&L theory exists because of discrepancies in the record and mistaken witnesses. Surely the H&L people will concede that errors are made by human beings. And, I have provided evidence that in any high profile case (as police and law enforcement officials know) there will be mistaken witnesses. There are over 300,000 records at Mary Ferrell alone that relate to JFK. That is certainly just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the available records. But for the sake of discussion, let's say there are half a million records related to JFK (there may well be more, I don't know). Let's also postulate a very conservative error rate in those records of one percent. It is probably much higher. Using my figures, that would give you 5000 documents that are in error. That is a lot of fodder for a theory like Armstrong's and you can begin to understand how those documents could be manipulated to show just about any "fact" if studied in the absence of other information.

The only ones who seem to be afraid are the H&L advocates. The purpose for creating this thread seems to have been to keep interest in the silly H&L theory alive. After all, the debunkers of the theory are a "bipartisan" group of Individuals-David Von Pein, Lance Payette and myself (and others) on the LN side and Greg Parker, David Lifton, Jeremy B. and numerous others on the CT side. So, Jim and other H&L people may be afraid that the theory is headed for the dustbin with several other "double Oswald" theories like those of Eddowes and Popkin. And, as far as I can tell, they are right.

Tracy, without asking me to go to another site, can you give a short answer regarding the two records of oswald in Japan and Taiwan? I understand what Jim is arguing so if I could get a short version of the counter point I would appreciate it so I can consider both sides.  

Edited October 12, 2019 by Cory Santos

[W. Tracy Parnell]

19 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Tracy, without asking me to go to another site, can you give a short answer regarding the two records of oswald in Japan and Taiwan? I understand what Jim is arguing so if I could get a short version of the counter point I would appreciate it so I can consider both sides.  

The very short answer Cory, is that it is the way the records are being interpreted. I used to be puzzled myself about this time period in LHO's life. The explanation seems to be that his unit was assigned to a different mission than was originally planned. This and his treatment muddied up the records and enabled the H&L people to do what they do.

[Cory Santos]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The very short answer Cory, is that it is the way the records are being interpreted. I used to be puzzled myself about this time period in LHO's life. The explanation seems to be that his unit was assigned to a different mission than was originally planned. This and his treatment muddied up the records and enabled the H&L people to do what they do.

Thanks.  I will consider the other sites with that background.

[Jim Hargrove]

This isn’t the least bit complicated.

Page 684 of the Warren Commission Report says: “On September 14, Oswald sailed with his unit for the South China Sea area; the unit was at Ping Tung, North Taiwan on September 30, and returned to Atsugi on October 5."

Commission Exhibit 1961 also indicates the same thing. 

Then, of course, there are the two USMC unit diary pages I’ve shown earlier indicating…. The same thing!

The young man who travelled to Taiwan was the Russian-speaking Oswald, the one who would soon pretend to “defect” to the Soviet Union.  In Moscow, he told UPI reporter  Ailene Mosby that he had been in Formosa (Taiwan).

During all the time the Russian-speaking Oswald was on the high seas and stationed in Taiwan, the American-born Oswald remained at Atsugi, Japan, where he was treated for VD.  

Most of these records we’ve been examining were published as part of the Donabedian Exhibit by the Warren Commission.  Donabedian testified on May 1, 1964, and clearly indicated that Oswald was not on a boat when these tests were made.  (See boldfaced remarks below.)

Mr. ELY - I would like at this point to refer you to pages 152 through 156 of this exhibit. 
I shall let you proceed to explain what these mean without questioning. 
Captain DONABEDIAN - On 9- 10- 58, slight burning on urination. "Has urethral discharge." 
Mr. ELY - Well, if you cannot read it, there is no point-- -- 
Captain DONABEDIAN - Then they took a smear. 
Mr. ELY - What is the purpose of a smear? 
Captain DONABEDIAN - A smear is to diagnose the cause of the infection, the cause of the discharge, to see what type of bacteria was present. 
And on 9- 23- 58, report of a urethral discharge sensitivity test. A culture was taken and reported staphylococcal hemolytic. And the sensitivity test to determine what drug we have that will affect that particular bacteria that is causing this. And erythromycin was the drug of choice. 

On page 154, on 16 September 58 he evidently went to one of the outlying dispensaries, and they said "Send to the mainside for smear," which means he was sent to the main side dispensary to get the smear taken. 

September 1958, the complaint was urethral discharge. They sent him to the lab for a smear. 
And here it says, "Gram negative, diplococci intra- and extra- cellular morphological resembling neisseria gonococci." 
Mr. ELY - Could you tell us, Doctor, generally, what that means? 
Captain DONABEDIAN - Well, this resembles the gonococcus bacteria which causes gonorrhea. And it says here morphologically resembling this germ-- since the only legal diagnosis would be to have a culture made to prove this or disprove it. 
And here for his treatment they gave him penicillin, it looks like 400,000units, four times a day, for 3 days, and said "Return on Monday in the p.m., for a repeat smear."
Then on September 30, 1958, "Still has profuse discharge, somewhat clearer,received course of penicillin ending 2 days ago." 
In other words, he had finished getting his penicillin. So for this profuse discharge, they treated him with chloromycetin capsules, one, four times a day,and return Monday for smear and culture. Then on September 22-- -- 
Mr. ELY - I believe the last item was September 20. 

On a military base such as that at Atsugi, by the way, "mainside" means the most built-up and significant part of the base.  The current web page for the Marine Corps Base at Camp Pendleton says: "The main base is in the Mainside Complex...."  Captain Donabedian is clearly describing Oswald's treatment at the base at Atsugi, not on a boat.

The medical records continue to show that, while Harvey Oswald was en route to Taiwan, LEE Oswald was still at Atsugi Sept. 20 and 22 and 23.  A smear and culture was taken on the 22nd and the culture results of the 23rd indicated the presence of “micrococcus pyogenes vas aurens.”   That was not done on a boat!  Here, again, are the documents the Captain was describing:

The evidence that one Oswald was on the high seas and in Ping Tung, Taiwan while the other was being treated at the Naval hospital in Atsugi, Japan is as plain as the nose on your face.

Confronted by the exact evidence I've shown here, the HSCA flat-out lied to the American people.   If anyone is interested, I can show how that worked.

[Jim Hargrove]

Since the H&L critics appear too embarrassed to discuss the specifics of their counterarguments here, I’ll do it for them.  There were only two potentially viable points put forward that I’m aware of, and they were:

1. The Oswald treated for a urethral discharge was cared for on the ship, not at the Atsugi hospital.

and

2. The USS Skagit did not depart on Sept. 14, 1958 because of a typhoon.

Let’s examine these in order.

1.  Oswald was treated for VD in Japan, NOT aboard the USS Skagit.

The testimony of Captain Donabedian quoted in my previous post, and the documents themselves, make this clear.  Capt. Donabedian said that, “… on 16 September 58 he evidently went to one of the outlying dispensaries, and they said ‘Send to the mainside for smear,’ which means he was sent to the main side dispensary to get the smear taken.”

Ships such as the USS Skagit did not have the scope of medical facilities described by Capt. Donabedian at the U.S. Naval Hospital at Atsugi, Japan.  His reference to “mainside” refers to the most significant part of the Atsugi base.  In the previous post, I gave an example of the use of the term on the USMC page for the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton.

This Oswald was treated for VD in Japan while the other Oswald was on the high seas and in Ping Tung, Taiwan, nearly 1,500 miles from Atsugi, Japan.

2.  The departure of the USS Skagit was NOT delayed by a typhoon.

Sandy Larsen discovered a web page entitled TIME LINE 1944 to 1969: USS SKAGIT AKA / LKA 105.

Under the subhead “Recollections of: Clark Leonard, LT. USMC: Combat Cargo Officer 1958 – 1959,” is the following entry:

"Departed Sept.14 and ran into Typhoon Helen, very rough seas, and giant waves. Arrived Kaoshung, Formosa on Sept,19 unloaded matting continuously for 48 hours."

The departure of the Skagit was NOT delayed by Typhoon Helen.  It left Japan on Sept 14, 1958, just as ALL the documents above show.

If any H&L critic has another argument to put forward showing that these records could be describing just one person, I ask them yet again to list the specifics RIGHT HERE.  They won't do so, of course.  At best, they'll just point somewhere else and claim it is all debunked there.  The same old story.

Edited October 15, 2019 by Jim Hargrove

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

If any H&L critic has another argument to put forward showing that these records could be describing just one person, I ask them yet again to list the specifics RIGHT HERE.  They won't do so, of course.  At best, they'll just point somewhere else and claim it is all debunked there.  The same old story.

I'm trying to figure out why an argument archived on a website is less valid than one posted here. You aren't still claiming that these arguments don't exist are you? Why do you maintain a website Jim? The partial answer is that you want a place to collect your arguments for the H&L theory. That is exactly why myself, Greg Parker and Jeremy B have websites-to showcase our counter-argumants. So, the only reason I can think of for your demand that H&L critics immediately post rebuttals "right here" is you need to have attention refocused on your theories. The truth is, anyone can see by your last post what your arguments would be if Parker's explanations were to be posted here. So what is the point? The arguments of each perspective side are well known and documented. 

[John Butler]

The USS Skagit has a very interesting history.  I have speculated that Harvey Oswald left Taiwan by plane for Japan on Oct. 5., 1958.  The information that is provided by Jim Hargrove says that the USS Skagit left for Subic Bay in the Philippines on Oct. 5, 1958.  This strengthens my speculation somewhat.  However, there could have been other Naval transport available, but the time interval suggests air travel.  Supposedly, Harvey reaches Iwakuni, Japan by Oct. 6, 1958.  That is 400 miles from Lee Oswald at Atsugi, Japan and I believe 1500 miles from Taiwan.  Harvey Oswald was never at the secret military base Atsugi, Japan.  There is no record that he was. 

He was not there at Iwakuni very long.  Depending how he went back to the US , he could have stayed at Iwakuni, Japan for a little over a week.  It is about a 2 week trip from Japan to the US by Naval transport.  This raises the question why was he sent there?  Why was he there for a short period of time?  The time period could be just a little over a week to about 3 / 4 quarters of a month depending on travel time.  Was meeting the "round-eyed" girl at Iwakuni more important than most people think? 

If Harvey left Iwakuni, Japan at the end of the month of October, 1958, an air trip would have taken about 10 hours to cover the distance between Iwakuni, Japan and San Francisco, CA.  By air the shortest route is over 5,000 miles long.   Harvey is in California on October 29, 1958.  Lee Oswald is still in Japan at this point in time.  It is one of many "smoking gun" issues of Harvey and Lee's saga.  A big one.

 

Edited October 15, 2019 by John Butler

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The arguments of each perspective side are well known and documented. 

 

The reason Jim wants you guys to post your anti-H&L arguments here in this thread is because he knows that your arguments are quite weak and sometimes even ridiculous . If they weren't, you could easily shut him up by posting a few strong ones. But you don't.

You guys need to respond to Jim in some way, and you do so by claiming (without foundation) that H&L evidence has been debunked, and by linking to the supposed debunking. Most people will not follow the links and that is what you guys count on. I'm sure that you, Tracy,  believe that your own articles actually debunk H&L. But you don't believe that Greg's articles do. (If you did believe so, you would have told me how specifically  they debunk the many times I've asked you.)

Jeremy B. goes a step further by trying to shame readers into not believing H&L. And by trying to paint current H&L believers as cult-following idiots. Shame on him.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

To any newbie reading this... I urge you to compare Jim Hargrove's arguments with those who disagree with him. Click on the links to Tracy Parnell's and Greg Parker's H&L debunkings You will see that there is no comparison in the quality of their respective arguments and evidence. Jim wins hands down. That's because Jim has the truth on his side whereas his opponents have only a preconceived notion that the CIA wouldn't have involved two young boys in one of their schemes. Having preconceived notions is not conducive to fact finding. Having an open mind is.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

31 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

To any newbie reading this... I urge you to compare Jim Hargrove's arguments with those who disagree with him.

Nobody is hoping that people will not check out the anti-H&L links. By all means, I urge the everyone to do their own research. Let every person make up their own mind. Just don't say that no counter arguments or explanations have been provided-they have. You don't agree with them-that is all. As an informal poll here some time ago showed-H&L lost, so most don't agree with it even here at EF where conspiracy is accepted.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

46 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I'm sure that you, Tracy,  believe that your own articles actually debunk H&L. But you don't believe that Greg's articles do.

My articles debunk many aspects of the theory at the very least. If one is willing to accept the exhumation and the handwriting and photo analysis, they debunk it completely. Of course, Jim and true believers only accept the evidence that supports H&L. I believe Greg's articles provide reasonable alternate explanations (there may be other explanations as well). I have provided brief summations of his work in the past but you simply refused to accept his work which is your right. But it is not my job to defend his work, I only make people aware of it, as he has gone into some areas that I have not deeply researched. If he were still able to post here, he would be explaining his theories and you guys would still be disagreeing with him. Because you are wedded to the theory at this point for whatever reason.

The whole thing with H&L can be summed up very easily. If all of these things (or enough if them) were unexplainable and happened in a vacuum, it could appear to be significant. But the real world doesn't work that way. There is a context for everything and when viewed in context and with the understanding that anomalies occur in real life, the H&L theory falls apart.

[Steve Thomas]

To Jim H,

Rather than trying to quote an earlier post of yours, here's a little something I noticed:

 

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bledsoe.htm

 

Mrs. BLEDSOE - “I said, "Well, what kind of work do you do? "Oh, I do electronics," he said, and I said, "Well, there is some good jobs because you are young, and you can get a good job a young man like you."
And then went on. Then something about him being in the Marines, and I said, "Well, that is wonderful. My son was in the Navy."

Mr. JENNER - When your son was in the Navy, did he have a duffelbag?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No. Now, it was so long ago--it was--I don't know whether he did. I don't think he did. He didn't. He was an instructor at TI.
Mr. JENNER - Was he stationed here in Dallas?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No, TI. Treasure Island.

 

I wondered about Oswald going from the YMCA in downtown Dallas to showing up on foot in OaK Cliff at Marsalis. I wonder if that was by accident.

I also looked up the USS Skagit. It's Captain (I forget his name right now ) transferred to a new ship in Hong Kong on October 15, 1958.

(Apropos of nothing I suppose).

 

Steve Thomas

[Guest]

This whole thread is a scratched record going round and round.......

[W. Tracy Parnell]

55 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

This whole thread is a scratched record going round and round.......

Probably the best comment made here in 12 pages.