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

[John Butler]

Jim,

I understand.  No problems.  It is my dissenting view that Harvey and Lee were both in the Soviet Union.  Harvey went first based on the evidence of his suicide scars.  I base my belief on several photos of who I believe is Lee Oswald.  And, the notion that why have an Oswald Project if the two main characters involved in it are not working the same area and the same spy mission.  I also believe that the two Oswalds were also in New Orleans at the same time in the summer of 1963.  I believe they worked the TSBD at the same time, at least on the day of the assassination.  They were kept away from each other in Japan.

I once believed the person in the right hand inset is not Harvey Oswald, but Lee.  This is based on other film frames.  This could be Lee.  Does this make me disbelieve in Harvey and Lee.  The answer is no.  I reserve the right to change my mind if stronger evidence is presented. 

And, on this I have changed my mind based upon the appearance of the hair on the back of Harvey's neck

The photos in this mug shot showing Harvey's hair pattern on his neck are the same as the street scene and is contemporary with the street scenes in the pamphlet film.  It is not great evidence, but it points out I was probably wrong and this describes a better way to look at it.

Edited February 12, 2020 by John Butler

[John Butler]

In photos like this there are things that make me suspicious of who we believe is Harvey or Lee.

This photo has been sharpened to point out what I consider to be suspicious features.  And, this makes it very difficult to determine who's who in the looking at Harvey or Lee.

On the neck are shadows that are much darker than other shadows on Harvey's face.  This occurs in both a frontal and side profile.  Would the light casting shadows be the same for both profiles and cast the same dark shadows in the same areas.  Once again those shadows are much darker than others.  The nose looks like part of a cut out of Harvey's head that didn't quite succeed. 

These suspicious things could suggest this is Lee's body and Harvey's head.  This is not a difficult thing for photo editors to make.  And, this is something one has to contend with in just about every photo of Harvey and Lee.

Edited February 12, 2020 by John Butler

[Jim Hargrove]

John,

I’m really glad that people like you and DJ and Paul J. and others take the H&L evidence and try to extend it and go beyond (including any corrections needed).  John A. told me on several occasions that he hoped this sort of thing would happen and this was one of the main reasons he put all his research online at Baylor University.

Surviving reports of Lee in the U.S. while Harvey was in Russia are relatively scarce (the Bolton Ford incident is probably the most famous), and so it is hardly impossible for Lee to have traveled abroad during this period.  I tend to doubt U.S. Intel would take the chance of sending Lee to the U.S.S.R. at the same time Harvey was there, but if you find evidence that he did go there, I say go for it and good luck!

Your analysis of the New Orleans mug shots is fascinating!  

[W. Tracy Parnell]

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

This is NOT a misinformation campaign, and Mr. Parnell's statement that it is (and the clear inference that I am lying) is against forum rules. 

An inference is different from a statement or personal attack. 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

4 hours ago, David Josephs said:

For someone who "wont waste the time" you sure spend a helluva lot of time trying to debunk the evidence with silly speculation and baseless conclusions....

I am working on changing that fact by mostly ignoring the H&L theory from now on. I have a new rule-if I can do it off the top of my head without doing any research, I will post something. Fortunately, the H&L theory is so demonstrably false that this can occasionally be accomplished even with my admittedly bad memory.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

57 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I’m really glad that people like you and DJ and Paul J. and others take the H&L evidence and try to extend it and go beyond (including any corrections needed).  John A. told me on several occasions that he hoped this sort of thing would happen and this was one of the main reasons he put all his research online at Baylor University.

Yes, but will Armstrong incorporate the research of Butler and others into the H&L dogma? I am betting not.

[David Josephs]

11 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

An inference is different from a statement or personal attack. 

in·fer·ence - a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

 

Yes WTP, it's different ....  it remains your chickensh!t way of attacking others and then retreating into that tiny, myopic world of yours  .

 

(so you're not lost Tracy... Myopic means lacking imagination, foresight, or intellectual insight.:   )

 

6 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I am working on changing that fact by mostly ignoring the H&L theory from now on. I have a new rule-if I can do it off the top of my head without doing any research, I will post something.

and how is that any different from everything you post and blog ????

(my emphasis)

edit: know what? never mind.   I keep forgetting to consider the source... and laugh.

Edited February 12, 2020 by David Josephs

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Just now, David Josephs said:

in·fer·ence - a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

 

Yes WTP, it's different ....  it remains your chickensh!t way of attacking others and then retreating into that tiny, myopic world of yours  .

 

(so you're not lost Tracy... Myopic means lacking imagination, foresight, or intellectual insight.:   )

 

and how is that any different from everything you post and blog ????

(my emphasis)

If he feels he has been wronged, he may file a complaint with the moderators. Keep your fingers crossed and perhaps I will get kicked off the board. Then you guys can play in your fantasy sandbox all day long with one less antagonist.  

[David Josephs]

 

44 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

If he feels he has been wronged, he may file a complaint with the moderators. Keep your fingers crossed and perhaps I will get kicked off the board. Then you guys can play in your fantasy sandbox all day long with one less antagonist.  

Since you're so big on being specific with your choice of words,  you might consider things like grammar...

"LESS" is for things that cannot be counted...  Less water, less air, less hatred
"FEWER" is for things that can be counted... Fewer cookies, fewer posts, fewer antagonists, etc....

but hey, at least you tried being cute with your little "inferences".  
"Ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know...."

[Jim Hargrove]

EYEWITNESSES

Mr. Parnell tells us witnesses can’t be trusted, but describes them in a deliberately general way, suggesting that brief, often distant, and usually passing sightings of escaped criminals and such can be compared with the much more detailed encounters I described on the previous page of this thread.  A few specifics....

In the Laura Kittrell employment office interviews, both Oswalds provably presented themselves as LHO. Not only did the two men look similar, they identified themselves by the same name during protracted conversations, sometimes providing specific biographical details.  In my estimation, this was most likely a deliberate test by the cover-up plotters to see if, during encounters just a few weeks apart, one Oswald could pass for the other on close inspection by a trained interviewer.

In the KOPY/Alice, Texas and environs encounters, not only did Stewart and Janca later identify Oswald by sight, but Stewart was able to produce the interview notes he made, which included the name “Lee Oswald.”  He said Oswald indicated he had recently returned from Mexico.  Oswald left a young child and a woman, who he said “doesn’t speak any English” in the car during his interview.  There are more details but….

A total of 17 witnesses, with varying degrees of specificity, placed Oswald, sometimes seen with his “family,” in Alice, Pleasanton, Freer, and a couple of other areas between Dallas and Alice on October 3 and 4th, just as Laura Kittrell and Downtown Dallas YMCA records place him in Dallas on the same two days.  Alice is nearly 400 miles south of Dallas.

If Mr. Parnell wants to debate this seriously, he should at least read through Chris Courtwright’s piece and look at the supporting documents…..

OSWALD IN ALICELAND? A Tale of Two Days; A Tale of Two Oswalds

[W. Tracy Parnell]

15 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

If Mr. Parnell wants to debate this seriously, he should at least read through Chris Courtwright’s piece and look at the supporting documents…..

No, I don't want to debate this "seriously" or otherwise. I have, of course, read Courtwright's piece. The problems are many, including the fact that "Oswald" is driving (which he didn't). Of course, the H&L people will say that this is the "other" Oswald or whatever they believe (who knows, who cares at this point?). You can believe there was a massive plot to have millions of "Oswalds" running around for some unexplained reason (or for reasons only that amazing genius John Armstrong can explain). Or you can accept the fact that people will believe they have seen something they have not for the simple reason that people like to insert themselves into important events (and other reasons as I have said).

Here is Dave Reitzes' article on Alice. He used to believe Armstrong but no longer does. Wise man.

http://www.jfk-online.com/alicelho.html

[John Butler]

Jim,

More on the New Orleans mugshot.

You once asked a question on face masks.  This example is a bit iffy.  I’m sure other folks will differ from this interpretation.

This comparison has on the right the unedited photo mugshot.  The photo on the left is edited to only sharpen the picture.  You will need to enlarge these to see the examples more clearly.

1.  There seems to be a straight line just below Oswald’s forehead hair line.  The color of the skin just below the hairline is different from the rest of the face.

2. There appears to be another line just to the left of the temporal hair line.  Those lines are difficult to see, so blow up this comparison example.

3. The third arrow indicates that Oswald’s characteristic two bends in his left ear has been obscure because those two bends are missing.

4. If you enlarge this photo and look at the sharpened side you might see what appears to be a film/photo strip there for the eyes.  This might be hard to confirm.

5. The color contrast in the frontal photo is different at the forehead hairline to that area below.   

One of the things that bothered me about this analysis is why use a face mask when you can substitute the whole head and neck.  This is what I originally thought because of the dark shadow lines at the collar of his shirt.

Here is something that appears to be a clue that this is a composite photo.  That is the characteristic of a broad neck, as seen from the front, and a normal appearing neck as viewed from the side.

1. If this neck belongs to Harvey then it is rightly placed in the photo.

2. On the other hand if this neck belongs to Lee then this proves that Lee has a Harvey face mask.  (I believe the Harvey and Lee folks believe Lee Oswald had the broad neck characteristic.)

3. It is rightly believed by most that only one of the two has a broad neck.

4. This Oswald has downward sloping shoulders.  I believe this is a Lee characteristic also. 

Edited February 13, 2020 by John Butler

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

No, I don't want to debate this "seriously" or otherwise. I have, of course, read Courtwright's piece. The problems are many, including the fact that "Oswald" is driving (which he didn't). Of course, the H&L people will say that this is the "other" Oswald or whatever they believe (who knows, who cares at this point?). You can believe there was a massive plot to have millions of "Oswalds" running around for some unexplained reason (or for reasons only that amazing genius John Armstrong can explain). Or you can accept the fact that people will believe they have seen something they have not for the simple reason that people like to insert themselves into important events (and other reasons as I have said).

Here is Dave Reitzes' article on Alice. He used to believe Armstrong but no longer does. Wise man.

http://www.jfk-online.com/alicelho.html

And, of course, Dave Reitzes specifically disagrees with your conclusion about Alice, TX.  Here is his own conclusion from the article you yourself linked:

Quote

There are, as far as I can see, only three possible explanations:

1. Lee Harvey Oswald was indeed in and around Alice, Texas at that time, not 400 miles away in Dallas, where considerable documentary evidence and eyewitness testimony place him.
2. Lee Harvey Oswald was impersonated in and around Alice, Texas at that time (for a purpose that would seem to be unclear).

3. Seventeen separate witnesses are each either mistaken or lying. (Could they all be mistaken? Why on Earth would they lie?)

As to an Oswald driving a car, you know, but will not admit, that there is a trainload of evidence for it.

Mr. JENNER. You have a distinct recollection that on occasions when this man came into your shop for a haircut, he drove an automobile up to your shop?

Mr. SHASTEEN. He drove that there 1955, I think it's a 1955, I'm sure it's a 1955 Chevrolet station wagon. It's either blue and white or green and white it's two-toned--I know that. Now, why I say--why I take it for granted that Mrs. Paine was with him when he come to the grocery store--I do remember he wasn't driving when they would come to the grocery store, there would be a lady driving and I'm assuming that that was Mrs. Paine, because like I say, I have been--I have never been close enough to her and knew it, to speak to her, but she trades at the service station where I do and I saw her in there and I never did pay any attention to her and I saw her passing, met her in the road in the car and those things. (WC X, 317)

---------

 

Mr. LIEBELER. You saw him drive up in the car?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes; because it was all glass in front and I was sitting at the--well, it's the cash stand-- we call it there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Which direction was he driving the car at that time?

Mrs. WHITWORTH. Driving west on a one-way street--that's a one way there.

--------

Of course, a Jack Ruby employee told the FBI an Oswald even drove the car when he accompanied him on an overnight fishing trip, but I'm not going to bother looking it up because you are clearly not here to be convinced.

 

Edited February 13, 2020 by Jim Hargrove

[David Josephs]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

or for reasons only that amazing genius John Armstrong can explain

Is this you "inferring" again WTP?

How is it that you still don't understand this discussion is about the EVIDENCE, not John Armstrong, Jim Hargrove, Me or anyone else...

There is NO DOUBT that some of the "Oswald sightings" were not Oswald, not a double, not even close...  NO DOUBT...

At the same time you fail to address the actual evidence of duplicity...  which runs rampant within the evidence...

If you choose to ignore or discount this evidence - that remains on you WTP... not the rest of us who can plainly see with regular sight.

We also realize that proving a negative: "none of these reports represents a different Oswald" is a difficult if not completely impossible task...
Yet on the flip side we offer evidence IN SUPPORT of the THEORY that 2 men existed as Lee Harvey Oswald and were exploited by the US Military Intelligence Apparatus.

That you cannot fathom Angleton or Dulles or Helms or Bissell (Richard Mervin Bissell Jr. was a Central Intelligence Agency officer responsible for major projects such as the U-2 spy plane and the Bay of Pigs Invasion) or Barnes or Hunt or Phillips or Goodpasture or Joannides  (George Efythron Joannides was a Central Intelligence Agency officer who in 1963 was the chief of the Psychological Warfare branch of the agency's JMWAVE station in Miami), or any of a score of other names would conceive of and execute a plan of this type is just naïve and stubbornly resistant. 

That you can NEVER separate the wheat from the chaff in your replies remains the biggest problem WTP...  instead of GENERALLY stating that people are unreliable witnesses....

We expect evidence that would allow anyone to conclude the sighting or story is not true...

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Here is Dave Reitzes' article on Alice. He used to believe Armstrong but no longer does. Wise man

Ok WTP - "Wise man" here has this to say about Marina via Doyle at the San Antonio Airport:

Oswald, Doyle recalled, said he'd been driving a friend's car and now wished to rent one. Doyle remembered him as being maybe 27 years old, 5'8", 145 to 150 pounds, with light brown hair. He wore a white T-shirt that was so dirty it was turning gray. Marina was described as being about 27, 5'5", 125 pounds, with black hair, and wearing a stained brown dress; she carried a baby. She didn't say anything; she simply smiled, and could be seen to have two slightly chipped front upper teeth.

OMG!! - someone PRETENDING to be Marina ????  Say it ain't so ...

Doyle's story was corroborated by Joan Dunsmore, a clerk at the National Rent-A-Car counter at the airport, who also remembered the couple. The thing she particularly remembered was Oswald playing with the baby by tugging the pacifier in and out of its mouth.

Marina Oswald was nine months pregnant in early October 1963; Rachel Oswald was born on October 20, 1963. Not a single report mentions that the foreign-speaking woman with Oswald was pregnant. The FBI reports of these sightings are vague about the descriptions of the woman and child or children. June Oswald was about a year and a half old; the descriptions of the couple's child largely do not fit her.

To sum up, fourteen witnesses believed they'd seen or spoken to Lee Harvey Oswald in or near Alice, Texas in or around the first week of October 1963, several of them specifying October 3rd, 4th and 5th. Many of these witnesses believed that Marina Oswald was with him. Another three witnesses placed Lee Oswald roughly between the cities of Alice and Dallas around the same time.

-------=======

So - your own reference simply reinforces the witnesses and sightings as being representative of the Oswald family - despite evidence placing Oswald and Marina elsewhere at the time....
Marina and Ruth are with Ozzie the 4th, 5th and 6th...

Where in that Dave article does he say the witnesses are all lying?  As Jim posted above...

#1 is not possible,
#2 makes the most sense... WHY? dave asks.... IMO it's to counter his trip to ODIO and his being in DALLAS with Cubans... remember this is BEFORE Phillips/Goodpasture put Ozzie in Mexico... well before the FBI uses Lic. OCHOA to create all the Mexican evidence of the trip....  I get the impression the ALICE OSWALDS were the work of the FBI to CYA for Ozzie's work and being seen by Odio...
#3 is not plausible.... unlike the Cuban Embassy with it's very closed loop of controlled witnesses, this is reversed... traveling about "appearing" to be the Oswalds leaves enough "evidence" to make his being seen anywhere else questionable... (for a purpose that would seem to be unclear).  This is the same as Whitten's response to why Oswald would be impersonated... it will remain unclear to those who have already decided H&L is not possible...

Gee WTP - your supporting evidence is even worse than your un-researched speculation you offer as rebuttal...  

There are, as far as I can see, only three possible explanations:

1. Lee Harvey Oswald was indeed in and around Alice, Texas at that time, not 400 miles away in Dallas, where considerable documentary evidence and eyewitness testimony place him.

2. Lee Harvey Oswald was impersonated in and around Alice, Texas at that time (for a purpose that would seem to be unclear).

3. Seventeen separate witnesses are each either mistaken or lying. (Could they all be mistaken? Why on Earth would they lie?)

 

EDIT:  I forgot I had this little piece of fluff....   Aren't you also railing against Newman's conclusions that ARMY INTEL was much more involved overseeing activities than CIA...  Why does Oswald - or an imposter writing this - talk about OZZIE THE MARINE being with the US ARMY ???  I don't know a single MARINE who would ever say something like that....  and since we know about John Edward and Robert.... and Marge being alive... what's going on here?

 

Edited February 13, 2020 by David Josephs

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

There is NO DOUBT that some of the "Oswald sightings" were not Oswald, not a double, not even close...  NO DOUBT...

Thanks for admitting that David. Because when you do that, you are opening the door to understanding the situation I am talking about. Some of the sightings are false, but now you have to decide which ones are and which aren't. And unsurprisingly, Armstrong proponents choose to believe sightings that support his theory and discount the others instead of considering the possibility that they all could be bogus especially in light of the evidence.

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Why does Oswald - or an imposter writing this - talk about OZZIE THE MARINE being with the US ARMY ???

Because "Army" is a general term for the US military. In Oswald's left-wing mind the sum of all the services is the "American Army." Now, you may think that is weak but it makes more sense to me than an impostor (presumably trained by the conspiracy) making such a mistake and exposing the conspiracy to sleuths like yourself. You can go down the list of all the discrepancies in this case and find an alternate explanation for all of them.

Edited February 13, 2020 by W. Tracy Parnell