Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I can provide a simpler explanation than yours. The H&L people are misinterpreting or intentionally misrepresenting the evidence to promote their theory. The records clearly show that LHO attended school at Beauregard beginning on January 13, 1954.  This jibes with other evidence showing that he and Marguerite left NYC just before this. Here is a 12-page thread (involving Lance) from 2017-18 discussing all of this. So for you to say there is no alternate explanation is just not correct:

 

And yet, remarkably, just yesterday Lance admitted that he could provide no explanation for the conflicting school records fiasco. Further, Lance demanded that it was up to the H&L supporters to explain the incompatible documents published by the Warren Commission: (" If you think these records on their face show something inexplicably mysterious, why don't you contact the respective schools, school districts or state departments of education and see what they say?  My guess is that the "mystery" would immediately go poof - and that's what you fear.  The H&L game is to posit "mysteries" on the basis of documents that may appear inconsistent because you don't know enough about the subject matter to understand what they actually say, then to "solve" those mysteries with "Harvey" and "Lee.")

Tracy, it appears you and I agree that the documentary record shows that someone named "Lee Harvey Oswald" enrolled at Beauregard Jr. High in New Orleans on January 13, 1954 after he and his mother left NYC.

I have news for you Tracy - all H&L supporters accept that as a fact. No one disputes that. So, stating the obvious does nothing for your argument. 

The real problem, once again, is that the Warren Commission published this record from the fall of 1953 in NYC:

NYC%20school%20record.jpg

And the Warren Commission also published this record from New Orleans from the fall of 1953:

53-54%20%232%20Beauregard-.jpg

Just as Jim Hargrove and John Armstrong have long contended, these documents conflict. They don't match. They are incongruous. "Lee Harvey Oswald" could not be in both NYC (at P.S. 44 in the Bronx) and at Beauregard Jr. High in New Orleans in the fall of 1953 ("1953 -54 - Report 1")

If there was an explanation for this mismatch, the Warren Commission was obligated to provide it. (Not the defenders of H&L. The burden of proof was then, and shall ever be, on those who defend the Warren Commission's version of events.)

The Warren Commission made no attempt to explain any of this, probably because those who knew of it could provide no "innocent" (i.e. no conspiracy) explanation.

As to why they published it?

My guess is that not all of those responsible for drafting the report were fully appraised of the "problem", and that in the crunch of the deadline, some of the truth inadvertently slipped out.

In any event, it is not up to us to explain this.

That failure lies for all time with those malefactors of the "official solution", the Warren Commission.

Edited by Paul Jolliffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks, Paul.  Despite the usual false claims that someone somewhere else has explained all this, it is quite obvious that no one here can explain the conflicting school records showing that:

For the 8th Grade fall semester of the 1953/1954 school year,  one Oswald attended Public School 44 in New York City for 62 full days and 5 half days, was absent 3 full days and 8 half days, for a total attendance of 78 days. In the very same semester, the other Oswald attended Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans for 89 days, and was absent one day.

No one has ever explained it.  I await, as always, an explanation from an H&L critic or anyone else.  In the meantime, as promised let me get back to the Bolton Ford incident.  In my next post, I'll show where I think we stand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2019 at 6:08 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

Now that we know that Mr. Payette based his lengthy psychoanalysis of conspiracy believers in general and people who understand and believe in Harvey and Lee in particular on the faulty assumption that “the H&L version of the Bolton Ford incident is based almost entirely on the recollections of Sewell in 1967,” let’s see if we can really figure out what really happened. 

Here’s the basic story, as John A. described it:

On January 20, 1961, while Harvey Oswald was in Minsk, two men visited the Bolton Ford dealership in New Orleans. They spoke with Assistant Manager Oscar Deslatte and said they were interested in purchasing 10 Ford Econoline Trucks. As one of the men discussed the purchase with Deslatte the other man, who identified himself as Joseph Moore, made a list of the equipment they desired on the trucks.

Deslatte went to his boss, truck manager Fred Sewell, and told him about the two men who wanted to purchase trucks and said they represented the "Free Democrats of Cuba or some such organization." Sewell told Deslatte to give the men a bid of $75 over their cost for the trucks. Deslatte and Sewell returned to Deslatte's desk and wrote out a bid form to Joseph Moore. As Deslatte was filling out the bid form, Joseph Moore and the other man began talking to both Deslatte and Sewell.42

When Moore saw that Deslatte had written his name on the bid form he asked that the name be changed to "Friends of Democratic Cuba." Moore's friend looked· at the form and said, "By the way, you'd better put my name down there because I'm the man handling the money." When Deslatte asked, "What's your name?" the man replied, "Lee Oswald.”

Deslatte gave the original bid form to "Lee Oswald" and kept a copy for his files, which he gave to the FBI following the assassination.

Bolton.gif

Note that on the bid form “Friends of Democratic Cuba” is written in near the top left, and the date, Jan. 20, 1961, is written near the top right and, under that, “Oswald.”  Mr. Payette wants us to believe that there is nothing significant to the fact that the officers and directors of the Friends of Democratic Cuba, Inc. included W. Guy Banister, who worked with “Oswald” in New Orleans in the summer of 1963, and former “Oswald” employer Gerard Tugague.

Friends.gif

On Dec. 19, 1963, the SAC in New Orleans sent an Airtel directly to J. Edgar Hoover himself informing him that Bolton Ford’s assistance manager Oscar Deslatte was telling others that he “had been contacted by Oswald and Oswald said he was trying to get trucks for Cuba.”   

Bolton_Confirm.jpg

Hoover went on to order the fabrication of a pre-dated a document designed to discredit at least parts of the story, including a false claim that Deslatte was unable to identify a picture of Oswald.
Deslatte1.png

 

We are supposed to believe this report was issued on 11/25/63, just three days after the assassination, when, in fact, Hoover wasn’t even informed of the Bolton Ford charges until 12/19/63 Airtel three weeks later.  (If you don’t believe the FBI would fabricate information, just take a look at this three minute video on YouTube in which Mark Lane and Gil Jesus show how the FBI dramatically altered the statements of three crucial Dealey Plaza witnesses.)

PROOF THE FBI LIED

Is there more evidence that the FBI report lied  specifically about Deslatte being shown a picture of Oswald?  Sure there is.  On May 2, 1967, James Alcock and Jim Garrison interviewed Fred Sewell, Oscar Deslatte’s boss at Bolton Ford.  (Mr. Payette wants us to believe Mr. Sewell invented the whole Bolton Ford incident during this interview, as if none of the above had happened.)

During that interview, Mr. Sewell described how he and Mr. Deslatte decided to call the FBI, what the FBI did, and added that the FBI agents “didn’t show us no pictures.  They didn’t do anything but take that paper and they offered us a receipt.”

Deslatte_to_Sewell.jpg

Bolton_FBI_Denies.jpg

What’s kind of creepy about all this is that H&L critics want us to believe that Fred Sewell, who at the time as living at 6520 Ithaca Street in Metairie, LA, and at the time of the interview with James Alcock was employed by Stevens Chevrolet in New Orleans, was making all this up!  It’s creepy because the one organization that we KNOW lied about assassination witnesses was the FBI.

Sewell_1.jpg

Once again, here’s the  three minute video on YouTube in which Mark Lane and Gil Jesus show how the FBI dramatically altered the statements of three crucial Dealey Plaza witnesses:

PROOF THE FBI LIED

Mr. Sewell freely provided this information to the Assistant D.A. of New Orleans.   During his interview, he explained that the FBI lied about showing a photograph to him and his assistant Oscar Deslatte.  What a surprise!

Also recalling that one Oswald was vehicle shopping in New Orleans while another was in the Soviet Union was James Spencer, who worked at Dumas Milner Chevrolet in the city.  Although Milner didn’t recall exactly when Oswald on two occasions visited dealership, he only worked there from February to August 1961, when the other Oswald was in the Soviet Union.

Spencer recalled that Oswald was interested in purchasing a 1958 Chevrolet. When Oswald returned for the second time Spencer took him across the street to the Walgreen Drug Store for coffee. Spencer remembered the young man talked a lot about Cuba and Castro.

When they finished having coffee Spencer wrote the young man's name, "Oswald," on the back of one of his business cards. After the assassination Spencer was interviewed by the FBI, and said he had no doubt that the individual he met in 1961 was "Lee Harvey Oswald."  

Spencer.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2019 at 6:30 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Parnell has claimed time and time and time again that someone, somewhere, has debunked Harvey and Lee, but he never dares to do it right here. 

Mr. Payette, at least, is trying, and I thank him for the opportunity to debate it fully.

 

On 9/27/2019 at 8:31 AM, Lance Payette said:

I'm going to stop beating my head against the H&L wall as well.  It's truly like debating with the most extreme form of religious fundamentalist - and I have a great deal of frustrating experience with that.  These folks need H&L for some reason. 

The space below is left blank to provide room for Mr. Payette, or anyone else, to explain how, during fall semester of the 1953/1954 school year,  one Oswald attended Public School 44 in NYC for 62 full days and 5 half days, was absent 3 full days and 8 half days, for a total accounting of 78 days, while in the very same semester, the other Oswald attended Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans for 89 days, and was absent one day.

 

Here’s some more space for Mr. Payette, or anyone else, to explain what happened to Oswald’s records from Stripling School.

 

Or perhaps someone can explain why Oswald’s employment prior to his service in the U.S. Marine Corps was not recognized by the Social Security Administration.

 

Or maybe someone—anyone—will tell us how one Oswald was stationed in Ping-Tung, Taiwan at the same time another was being treated for venereal disease near Atsugi, Japan. (According to Google, the two locations are 2,316 km apart.)

 

Or, let’s keep it simple.  Could Oswald drive a car?  Did he have a Texas driver’s license? 

 

Since Mr. Payette so often psychoanalyzes people who he thinks suffer from what he surely considers to be H&L derangement syndrome, perhaps he can show, citing a few examples above, why he people who understand and believe the Harvey and Lee analysis are so wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Since Mr. Payette so often psychoanalyzes people who he thinks suffer from what he surely considers to be H&L derangement syndrome, perhaps he can show, citing a few examples above, why he people who understand and believe the Harvey and Lee analysis are so wrong.

I can explain that. It is because they take things out of context. No investigation is done in a vacuum. All of the facts are considered when reaching a conclusion. H&L does not do that. It takes a "fact" (that may be a fact at all) and says "look at it just our way and it shows 2 Oswalds."

ALL of the subjects you mention have alternative explanations. All of those explanations have been posted right here at EF in other threads, several of which have been pointed out to you. Greg Parker has a section of his website titled "alternative explanations for H&L." But apparently it is more "fun" for you to try and draw someone into a debate rather than read the explanations that have been provided. Evidently, you don't realize that nearly everyone is sick of H&L and uninterested in further debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I can explain that. It is because they take things out of context. No investigation is done in a vacuum. All of the facts are considered when reaching a conclusion. H&L does not do that. It takes a "fact" (that may be a fact at all) and says "look at it just our way and it shows 2 Oswalds."

ALL of the subjects you mention have alternative explanations. All of those explanations have been posted right here at EF in other threads, several of which have been pointed out to you. Greg Parker has a section of his website titled "alternative explanations for H&L." But apparently it is more "fun" for you to try and draw someone into a debate rather than read the explanations that have been provided. Evidently, you don't realize that nearly everyone is sick of H&L and uninterested in further debate.

You don't get it, do you Tracy? All of those "alternative explanations" that you claim disprove the H&L thesis (never mind whether they are slipshod, juvenile, illogical and, in some cases, downright stupid) none of it matters!

It was not up to you nor me nor anyone else to find "alternative explanations"  -  it was up to the Warren Commission to explain these problems in THIER OWN EVIDENCE!

The reason you and I and everyone else is having this discussion today, 55 years after the issuance of their report, is because they, the Warren Commission completely failed to address any of this!

Those on the WC aware of the evidentiary problems sought desperately to avoid the implications, and yet, some of the truth did slip out - they (inadvertently) published the Fall 1953 public school records indicating that there were indeed two different LHO's in two different schools in two different states.

You may claim that this (and everything else) has all been "altenative explained" away elsewhere all you like, but the fact remains:

It was up to the Warren Commission to explain it, and their collective failure (they couldn't even answer such a simple question as "where did the accused go to junior high in the fall of 1953?") voids all their conclusions about anything for all time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

It was not up to you nor me nor anyone else to find "alternative explanations"  -  it was up to the Warren Commission to explain these problems in THIER OWN EVIDENCE!

In a perfect world Paul, every loose end could be tied up. But the real world doesn't work that way. And the WC had a finite amount of time to do their work and did the best they could within that constraint. As is normal when you get a group of individuals together, some staffers and members did not agree on every issue. But professional investigators (police, FBI, private investigators) know that not every loose end will be tied up. There will be some things that do not support the final determination. 

The fact that we are discussing the evidence 50 plus years later shows the amount of information that is there to work with. And I am always surprised by claims such as yours that the WC should have answered this or that question that researchers are still pondering over. Some things may never be fully answered but there is enough information available to get a good grip on the life of LHO IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

In a perfect world Paul, every loose end could be tied up. But the real world doesn't work that way. And the WC had a finite amount of time to do their work and did the best they could within that constraint. As is normal when you get a group of individuals together, some staffers and members did not agree on every issue. But professional investigators (police, FBI, private investigators) know that not every loose end will be tied up. There will be some things that do not support the final determination. 

The fact that we are discussing the evidence 50 plus years later shows the amount of information that is there to work with. And I am always surprised by claims such as yours that the WC should have answered this or that question that researchers are still pondering over. Some things may never be fully answered but there is enough information available to get a good grip on the life of LHO IMO.

But...

There should have been no time limit for this investigation.  It should have been fully investigated.  Why was it not?

The commission making the findings did not even see all the actual evidence?  Why not?

Fact, agencies hid, mislead, evidence.  Why?

The only reason we now can say Ferrie knew LHO as a fact is a photograph that took over 30  years to come out.  If the wc knew so much, why did they not interview these witnesses and publish the photo?  Why?

Truth is the why is the proof something is not right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

There should have been no time limit for this investigation.  It should have been fully investigated.  Why was it not?

Any political investigation has a time limit of some sort. However, even some of the WC people (can't remember who it was right now) agreed with you to this extent. There should have been a provision made to address (legitimate) issues that came up. Of course, being a political body that would require funding and that is always an issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems with the Harvey & Lee theory is that fact that many other people connect to their lives.

1. Their mothers. If H&L is true, then one of the mothers was murdered, and her history erased.

2. Family and Friends. If H&L is true, then the family, friends and neighbors of these boys would have all known these two boys, and classmates and parents of kids in his classes would all remember them. Did this happen for both boys?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Any political investigation has a time limit of some sort. However, even some of the WC people (can't remember who it was right now) agreed with you to this extent. There should have been a provision made to address (legitimate) issues that came up. Of course, being a political body that would require funding and that is always an issue.

The answer is it should have been investigated by the DPD in conjunction with the FBI.  A congressional investigation also could have made sense and would have been more thorough.  No LBJ made sure it was a presidential commission with an objective which was not to get to the truth, but rather to produce a plausible theory of Oswald did it alone.

Edited by Cory Santos
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ken Martinson said:

One of the problems with the Harvey & Lee theory is that fact that many other people connect to their lives.

1. Their mothers. If H&L is true, then one of the mothers was murdered, and her history erased.

2. Family and Friends. If H&L is true, then the family, friends and neighbors of these boys would have all known these two boys, and classmates and parents of kids in his classes would all remember them. Did this happen for both boys?

The Russian-speaking Oswald had no one to care for him, just an estranged wife who couldn’t wait to get away from him and two daughters too young to help.  On the other hand, the American-born Oswald had a brother, a half-brother, and a real mother, (the real “Marguerite”did seem to disappear).  There was certainly too much light on “Lee Harvey Oswald” to risk killing his immediate family members.

In a memo to Lou Ivon, Jim Garrison wrote this about Classic Oswald’s® brother: "If you really want to know what I think, it is that Robert Oswald knew this returning defector was not really Lee and this is what Robert's problem was the night of the assassination when he found it necessary to take such a long drive to think things out. He knew things were far more complicated than they appeared on the surface."

Robert Oswald, probably for entirely patriotic reasons, was an integral part of the original “Oswald project,” which had been going on for at least a decade but only became entangled in the plot to kill JFK in 1963.  Half-brother John Pic told the Warren Commission that he didn’t recognize his own brother from several clear pictures of Classic Oswald.

The woman who testified as “Marguerite Oswald” was an impostor, a caretaker for the young Russian-speaking man who eventually was known to the world as “Lee Harvey Oswald.” She knew so little about her “son” that she had to be given notes during her testimony to remind her of basic biographical details about him.

Marguerite told a NYC probation officer that she was the youngest of 6 children, yet there were 5 children in the Claverie family. She gave Lee Oswald's father's name as Robert Lee Harvey, when his real name was Robert Edward Lee Oswald. She said Lee's father died at age 45, yet we know he was 41 years old when he died. She gave her marriage date as July 19, 1929, yet she married Robert Oswald in 1933. She gave her sister's name as Lillian Sigouerette, when we know her sister's name was Lillian Murrett. She said she formerly owned a house in Corning, Texas, yet there is not and never has been a "Corning," Texas. She gave Lee Harvey Oswald's birth date as October 19 when the correct date was October 18th. She said Lee was baptized at the Trinity Lutheran Church in New Orleans, when the records show he was baptized at the Redeemer Lutheran Church in New Orleans. When she was asked by the Warren Commission whether Lee's father was right or left handed she replied, "I do not remember, sir."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The woman who testified as “Marguerite Oswald” was an impostor

And yet not one person out of the dozens or hundreds who knew her stepped forward to say she so. This article also addresses the silly assertion that the Evans' tried to tell the WC that she was an impostor:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Mr. and Mrs. Evans didn't realize the enormity of what CIA accountant James Wilcott called "the Oswald Project," but they clearly didn't recognize their long-time friend "Marguerite." Myrtle Evans and her husband Julian were friends with the real Marguerite Oswald for nearly three decades. Included in Julian Evans' April 7, 1964 WC testimony was this exchange with Jenner (emphasis added):  


Mr. JENNER - Give me your impression of Marguerite Oswald.
Mr. EVANS - Marguerite?
Mr. JENNER - Yes.
Mr. EVANS - I think she's a fine woman, myself, a fine woman; intelligent, very soft spoken - a beautiful woman, with black hair streaked with a little gray, but when you saw her on television since this thing happened, she really looked awful; nothing at all like she used to look. She has really aged. She looked like a charwoman, compared to what she used to look like. She used to be a fashion plate. She dressed beautifully, but when we saw her on television just recently, after all this happened, she looked awful. There's no way to describe it, the change that has come over her. You wouldn't have recognized her if they hadn't told you who she was; she looked that different. Where her hair used to be black, now it's entirely gray, and she really looks Old
Mr. JENNER - Well, she's 57, I believe.
Mr. EVANS - That's right; she's the same age as my wife, but she looks about 70 now. That's about all I can remember about her, and then I saw this thing on television when the President was assassinated, and when it showed her picture, we just couldn't believe it was Marguerite.


His wife Myrtle Evans testified on the same day:

Mrs. EVANS - A very good housekeeper, very tasty; she could take anything and make something out of it, and something beautiful. She had a lot of natural talent that way, and she was not lazy. She would work with things by the hour for her children, and she kept a very neat house, and she was always so lovely herself. That's why, when I saw her on TV, after all of this happened, she looked so old and haggard, and I said, "That couldn't be Margie," but of course it was, but if you had known Margie before all this happened, you would see what I mean. She was beautiful. She had beautiful wavy hair.

Mrs. Evans added this:

Mrs. EVANS - As far as I could see, they were very happy, very closely knit, very much in love with each other, and these boys knew that their mother was putting them through school, and giving them what they needed, as best she could. She was a very good provider for her children, and a very decent woman. I mean, she wasn't a loose woman at all. She was very decent, a very fine woman. 

Does that sound like the "Marguerite Oswald" we all heard about.

And then there's Ed Voebel....


Mr. JENNER. Did you ever meet his mother? 
Mr. VOEBEL. I think I met her one time, and for some reason I had a picture in my mind which was different from when I saw her in the paper after all of this happened. I didn't recognize her. She was a lot thinner, and her hair wasn't as gray, as I recall it, when I met her. Of course, this was about 8 years ago, but I can remember she had a black dress on, and she was sitting down smoking a cigarette; now, maybe she wasn't smoking, but this is a picture that comes to my mind as I recall that. 

Of course, none of these people could have possibly known about the elaborate charade that comprised the Oswald Project, but they clearly were surprised at phony Marguerite's appearance in 1964.  

Mr. and Mrs. Evans both testified that the Lee Harvey Oswald they knew was loud and boisterous, with a "foghorn voice."  This is certainly not the quiet, withdrawn, passive-aggresive kid described by the Warren Commission.

Item #361 on the Warren Commission's list of source materials is entitled "Biographic Information on Mrs. Oswald and her relatives." The report on Mrs. Oswald's background, not surprisingly, was prepared by the CIA.

MO_CIA.png

 

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim,

Well, has all these debaters convinced you that you are a deluded fantatist and a devotee of the Harvey and Lee religion.  If I have my guess I would say NOT!!!! 

There are tons of reasons why Harvey and Lee ideas are credible.  I like this one the best.

harvey-and-lee-as-teenagers.jpg

I haven't followed this thread very well.  My mind rebels when I try to read your opponent's postings.  They lack creditability when compared to the records you are posting.  And, they use to many propaganda techniques.

I think debating these fellows is a waste of time.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...