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

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Tracy Parnell tells Jim Hargrove:

Quote

despite your lengthy post, you didn't answer Jeremy's question. That's because you can't.

This is the question I asked, and which Jim has avoided answering: what are the specific facial features which allow us to distinguish the fictional characters 'Harvey' and 'Lee'?

Jim is doing his best to avoid answering that question. Take the set of four images, supposedly of Lee Harvey Oswald, which Jim has provided. No-one has ever credibly claimed that the middle two images are of the real Oswald, or of the fictional character 'Harvey' or the fictional character 'Lee'. These two images have nothing to do with the question of whether the facial features of 'Harvey' and 'Lee' were identical or different. Why did Jim include these images, if not to pretend to answer my question while actually avoiding it?

Let's try again. Were the facial features of the fictional characters 'Harvey' and 'Lee' identical or different? If they were different, those differences should be visible consistently in the photographic record. But they aren't, are they?

Look at the 70-odd photographs in Jim's montage on page 48. There are no consistent differences between the noses ("obviously very different" according to one believer!), the mouths, the eyes, the eyebrows, the ears, etc. Even Jim can't identify any consistent differences in the facial features in those photos. We are left with two possible conclusions:

(a) 'Harvey' and 'Lee', despite being unrelated and from different parts of the world, turned out to look identical a decade or so after being chosen for their top-secret doppelganger project. Or ...

(b) There were no 'Harvey' and 'Lee'. They are characters in a work of fiction. There was only the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald.

Of course, there's also option (c): the photographs have been faked by the lizard people, like all the other evidence which contradicts the 'Harvey and Lee' theory.

As Tracy points out, all of Jim's 'Harvey and Lee' talking points have been debated over and over again, here and elsewhere. If Jim needs to refresh his memory, he will find these resources useful:

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13-the-harvey-lee-evidence

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1588-harvey-lee-links-to-alternative-explanations

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/search/label/Harvey%20%26%20Lee

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/2oswalds.htm

http://22november1963.org.uk/john-armstrong-harvey-and-lee-theory

[W. Tracy Parnell]

16 hours ago, John Kowalski said:

I was wondering why you were spending so much time with discussing H & L with people who will never ever accept John Armstrong's theory.

As Jim said, the EF provides great coverage on Google. You know the deal that Jim D. got with Oliver Stone? That's what he's hoping for.

[John Butler]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Congratulations to Mr Butler for identifying the only facial feature that distinguishes 'Harvey' from 'Lee'! One ear in a photograph looks marginally different to one ear in ... a drawing. Oh well. And the shadow on one ear in a second photograph is slightly different from the shadow on the same person's ear in a third photograph.

I can never work out if Mr Butler is being serious, or if he is having a laugh at the expense of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory. Just in case Mr Butler is being serious, could he confirm that all the other facial features of 'Harvey' and 'Lee' - eyes, eyebrows, mouth, nose, etc - are identical?

Or, if he really thinks there are consistent differences, could he point out a few examples in the mugshot montage on page 48? They are all the same person, aren't they?

Take me seriously if you can.  Supporters of Harvey and Lee know that I am dead serious.  I fully support the ideas of John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee facts.  Don't take me as a doubter because I have a curious mind and want to explore the parameters of Harvey and Lee.  I think of myself as a skeptic with most issues.  I've often been called a cynic by others. 

There are some things I disagree with in Harvey and Lee, but that in no way counters the overall belief that Mr. Armstrong is correct in what he is saying.

Here is a photo montage of Harvey in the Marine Corps.  These show at least 5 (actually more) of the main characteristics I use to ID Harvey or Lee.

You need to know more about Harvey and Lee then just identifying who's who in photos.  The top two photos are Harvey Oswald, or at least composites.  From the one characteristic I have shared with you, you should know why I have identified this as Harvey Oswald. 

The bottom photo is not.  Can you figure out why?

Here is a photo of baby Lee Harvey Oswald.  But, it is not Lee Oswald.  It is Harvey. 

This photo was probably taken about 1941. 

Edited February 19, 2020 by John Butler

[Jim Hargrove]

Mr. Bojczuk wants readers to believe I am avoiding answering his questions when, in fact, it is he himself who is trying to change the subject to avoid issues I raised on the very first page of this thread, and elsewhere in it.  For the ninth time, now, will Mr. Bojczuk finally debate here the following issues? Or will he just say, as predicted in the title of this topic,  that someone else has successfully debunked these points and hide behind a flurry of links?  None of the issues below are debunked in any of the links Mr. Bojczuk provides above.

• For the fall semester of the 1953-54 school year,  one Oswald attended Beauregard JHS in New Orleans for 89 school days while the other was enrolled in Public School 44 in New York City, where he was present for 62 full days and 5 half days, was absent 3 full days and 8 half days, for a total accounting of 78 days.
• For the next semester, one Oswald was at Beauregard JHS in New Orleans while the other Oswald attended Stripling School in Texas.
• One Oswald lost a front tooth during a fight at Beauregard JHS in the fall of 1954, but the Oswald exhumed decades later obviously had all his front teeth intact.
• The Social Security Administration did not include ANY of “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” teen-aged employment income in his “Lifetime Earnings Report” indicating in a cover letter it was including “Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report re employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to service in the Marine Corps.”
• One Oswald departed for Taiwan aboard the USS Skagit on Sept. 14, 1958 and was stationed in Ping Tung, Taiwan on Oct. 6, 1958, at the very same time the other Oswald was being treated for venereal disease at Atsugi, Japan, nearly 1500 miles away.
• One Oswald appeared at the Bolton Ford dealership in New Orleans while the other was in the Soviet Union.
• One Oswald had a driver’s license and was seen by many witnesses driving a car, and the other Oswald could not drive.
• On November 22, 1963, one Oswald left the Texas School Book Depository on a bus and then a taxi, and the other left in a Nash Rambler.

Mr. Bojczuk repeatedly refuses to debate the above points, claiming only that someone else has debunked them.  If that were true, surely Mr. Bojczuk would be willing to summarize those debunkings in his own words here.  But he won’t.  He also ignores the evidence that as an adult, Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald was 5’9’ tall while, also as an adult, American-born Lee Oswald was 5’11” and quite a bit heavier.

The missing front tooth is a particularly simple illustration of the differences between the two Oswalds. In the fall of 1954, Ed Voebel became acquainted with LEE Oswald after he witnessed him in a fight with Johnny and Mike Neumeyer (9th grade). The fight lasted a long time and was witnessed and remembered by several students at Beauregard. After the fight Voebel and two friends got some ice for (LEE) Oswald and attempted to patch him up. 

Mr. JENNER. But you do remember that you attempted to help him when he was struck in the mouth on that occasion; is that right?
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out.
           --Warren Commission: Vol. 8, Page 3   

Voebel himself snapped the photo of Oswald and his missing tooth, which he eventually sold to LIFE magazine for $75.  

Of course, the 1981 exhumation photos clearly show that Classic Oswald® (Russian-speaking Harvey) had no missing front tooth.

Mr. Bojczuk simply ignores all the points I have raised above, and more, and tries to change the subject by asking me to point out discrepancies in a clearly corrupted photographic record.

The title of this thread is: "EVIDENCE FOR HARVEY AND LEE (Please debate the specifics right here. Don't just claim someone else has debunked it!)" Of course, no one is obligated to follow my suggestions, but the inability of ANYONE to debunk right here the points I raised above speaks volumes.  All anyone can do is hide behind links, pretending someone else, somewhere else, has successfully debunked these issues.  They haven't. 

[Jim Hargrove]

17 hours ago, John Kowalski said:

Some of the Blair papers have been copied. My contact did not have time to copy everything so he will return another time and copy some more. 

https://archive.org/details/blair-papers-folder-1

John,

I've read through this but I can't see any mention of the Gardos family, and only a few personal things about the Blairs.  He says, for example, "We were full Germans."  Did you contact copy more stuff this time around.  Please thank him again for his work.

[John Butler]

Jim,

I started to ask one or two questions for Mr. Bojczuk, but as I typed the first I realized you can't ask questions like that on the Forum. 

I believe he only believes in things he wants to believe.  Anything you post is fiction and fantasy.  You have no believable facts.  It doesn't matter what type.

He has conceded one ID fact about Harvey.  He needs to go back and look at what I have posted earlier about identifying differences between Harvey and Lee.  If not, I doubt I will be posting anything extra for his amusement.

You mentioned John K. and the Blair papers.  I found it interesting the paper is dated August, 1963.  It has what I take as the socialist or communist view of President Kennedy in 1963.  I need to go back and read the whole set rather than the scan I just did.

It is unfortunate that John K's contact didn't go for the Grace Blair Gardos letters first.  I am not complaining.  I thoroughly thank John K. and his contact for their work.  I'm happy to get whatever it is they come up with.  It is very much appreciated.  From this paper we get an good look at Fred, the communist, and his thinking in August, 1963.  This will be helpful.  Once again, I am not complaining.  I am very appreciative for their good work.

Fred Blair says, "We were full Germans.".  I caught that and it is my belief he meant they supported the Germans in WWI, perhaps.  And, not that they were of German descent which they are not. 

"Mr. Bojczuk simply ignores all the points I have raised above, and more, and tries to change the subject by asking me to point out discrepancies in a clearly corrupted photographic record.

David Josephs believes that there are no photos of Lee Oswald after 1959.  I agree.  But, I reserve the view that there are a few that could be said to be Lee.  However, they are so blurred or distance that making the point is difficult and arguable.  Therefore, I don't stress the point or argue it.   

Edited February 19, 2020 by John Butler

[John Kowalski]

13 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Great news, John!  Looks like your above link leads, already, to some of the scans your contact made.  It that correct?

Yes it does, this material is biographical, there is info about where his family came from but nothing about Gardos. There is a file about Gardos but he did not have time to copy it. I have contacted Wisconsin Historical Society about copying the Gardos file and will update you when they get back to me.

Edited February 19, 2020 by John Kowalski

[John Butler]

5 minutes ago, John Kowalski said:

Yes it does, this material is biographical, there is info about where his family came from but nothing about Gardos. There is a file about Gardos but he did not have time to copy it. I have contacted Wisconsin Historical Society about copying the Gardos file and will update you when they get back to me.

John K.

Thanks for your excellent work.  I look forward to the next installment.

[David Josephs]

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

This is the question I asked, and which Jim has avoided answering: what are the specific facial features which allow us to distinguish the fictional characters 'Harvey' and 'Lee'?

Sir - you aint gonna learn what you don't wanna know...  so why do you keep asking as if an answer would satisfy you rather than it look like pouring gasoline on your cute little flames?

"Fictional Characters" ??  How does this not appear as if you've already made up your mind JB?  You ask questions as if sincerely curious... but lo and behold -
You're not in the least...  you simply want more gasoline to stoke the flaming....    

So JB - if you're not going to discuss these points with some level of respect and decency, blocking your posts is easily done.  You've added nothing to these threads except for the same BS flaming we see everywhere the uninformed attack H&L.  You going to be an adult or you going to continue whining and stomping your feet cause you'd rather curse darkness than light a candle....

And you're not even that good at it...    So how about stop asking poorly worded tautological questions and have a meaningful discussion...

The left eyebrow on both men is very similar... by sizing the eyebrow and the eyes to match exactly we can begin to see the differences - all you need do JB is open your eyes...

Ears are different heights; shoulders on LEE slope heavily; HARVEY has a much more defined chin; the mouth is not in the same place.... Harvey's nose bends to his left, LEE is more centered even leaning to his right; (btw - that photo at far right is THE LAST ONE of Lee we know of...

And we needn't be focused on FACIAL differences.... try these on for size
Lee was 5'11" and pushing 160 lbs
Harvey was 5'9 and barely 140 lbs

Lee had a gunshot wound near the left elbow, a mastoid scar behind his LEFT EAR... Harvey's autopsy mentions a "3/4 inch scratch" at the end of the "right" mastoid... not left
BTW - he goes from being 5'11" (71 inches) when he exits the Marines yet SHRINKS to 5'9" by the time he's 24?? 

 

We've gone over the teeth already... but here's the image so you can remember JB:  Marine exam on top clipart, 1981 exam results on bottom...
Sure is nice when 3 molars grow back - right! 

 

   

 

John Pic - his half brother - correctly chose his brother over HARVEY from the LIFE Photos - every time.

Mr. JENNER - I show you an exhibit, a series of exhibits, first Commission Exhibit No. 281 and Exhibit No. 282 being some spread pages of an issue of Life magazine of February 21, 1964. I direct your attention first to the lower lefthand spread at .the bottom of the page. Do you recognize the area shown there?
Mr. PIC - No, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Do you see somebody in that picture that appears to be your brother?
Mr. PIC - This one here with the arrow.
Mr. JENNER - The one that has the printed arrow?
Mr. PIC - That is correct, sir.
Mr. JENNER - And you recognize that as your brother?
Mr. PIC - Because they say so, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Please, I don't want you to say--
Mr. PIC - No; I couldn't recognize that.
Mr. JENNER - Because this magazine says that it is.
Mr. PIC - No, sir; I couldn't recognize him from that picture.
Mr. JENNER - You don't recognize anybody else in the picture after studying it that appears to be your brother? When I say your brother now, I am talking about Lee.
Mr. PIC - No, sir.

 

When our man OZZIE gets to Helsinki he stays in the same high end hotels as past CIA operatives...  and even there the signatures don't match - kinda like they don't match on the Cuban Application from Mexico City.  Plus we have evidence of our 2 Oswalds traveling to Europe by difference means and arriving at different places....  which may explain the mix-up with London and having the airport stamp in LEE's Passport book.

 

[Stephen Lavin]

I wonder what the view of other members and guests are of the numerous threads regarding the Harvey and Lee theory?

There appears to be a strategy of repeating and rehashing the same points in different threads in an attempt to drive traffic to the Harvey and Lee website, as admitted by Mr. Hargrove in a previous post.

I find that the tone and nature of the replies to anyone who appears to doubt the veracity of the claims made on the website to be sarcastic, unpleasant and not academic in nature. I would suggest that this undermines not only the claims of the H and L theory supporters, but shows the whole community in a poor light. I would hope that in future the posters could maintain a more dignified and polite approach to the debate.

In my opinion, it is clear from the record available that L.H.O  was being impersonated in the US whilst he was clearly overseas. However, this does not mean that the H and L theory is correct , as there are a number of explanations that are more feasible, for example identity theft.

As an Academic Writing professional, it is my view that the writing style, structure, layout and citations contained in the H and L website and the source material from Mr. Armstrong leaves a lot to be desired. It lacks academic discipline and appears to state the hypothesis / plot for a work of fiction and then cherry pick evidence to support it and is not of a standard required for even an undergraduate level student at any English speaking university. 

I would suggest comparing the H and L site to that of Mr. Bojczuk and make your own evaluation.

In brief, I would appeal to posters not to be so rude to others, accept the limitations of your evidence and in doing so, not appear to be so dogmatic and paranoid. 

I believe this would make the debates here more informative and interesting and encourage other to become involved in research and discussion.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Stephen,

If you are looking for formal endnote citations, thousands of them are available in the book Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong.  Excellent PDFs of the 1000+ page book are freely available on the web, as are files extracted from the accompanying Harvey and Lee CD, which contains nearly a thousand additional pages of document reproductions and photographs.

ALL of the documentation and other evidence John A. assembled for his book (much of which he obtained personally from the National Archives) is fully searchable and available without charge or limitations at Baylor University's online JFK | John Armstrong Collection.  I plan to continue to post summaries of key points points of evidence for Harvey and Lee until someone can debunk them right here.
 

[David Josephs]

58 minutes ago, Stephen Lavin said:

In brief, I would appeal to posters not to be so rude to others, accept the limitations of your evidence and in doing so, not appear to be so dogmatic and paranoid. 

I believe this would make the debates here more informative and interesting and encourage other to become involved in research and discussion.

Excellent point Stephen and welcome to posting on the forum...  something you might consider though...

Most of those who jump into the H&L detail attack have never read the book.... have never seen the CD with hundreds of images and documents... or have gone to the Baylor Archives to look at John's notebooks themselves.

Believe it or not... everything is NOT available online...  only as more and more people scan and post  and/or donate to some level of archiving will we scratch the surface.

I spent almost 2 years going page by page with John Armstrong... running down the footnotes, digging up the notebooks as well as copies of things not even in those...
We did not agree on 100% of what we discussed... the point John (and Jim) are trying to make is that it's the DISCUSSION that makes progress on the subject....

John wrote that it was LEE going to Mexico... this was back in late 1990's....  when I dove into that trip and discovered it was not LEE in Mexico City... we continued to discuss and keep an open mind to the possibility it was not Lee.   but that did not discount the hundreds of other items of evidence which tells the H&L story...

What burns me the most about the attackers is they attack John as if it is he who put the evidence in the record, in the archives....
John never told Palmer McBride to rebuke Lifton for calling him a xxxx...or for telling his story in the first place.

When he did th3e checking he finds that Oswald did in fact work in New Orleans in late 1957 into early 1958 at Pfisterer's where he and McBride discuss Sputnik which is not known to the US until October 1957....

Military records have Oswald in Japan at the time....

So yes... please make up your own mind but at least do the homework.... the harveyandlee.net website has the most current data...

Saying there was no H&L is akin to repeating FDR was not aware of the impending Pearl Harbor attack...  it was a lie so big it simply couldn't be told... until it was found out.

I wish you luck with your search...  your thoughts on the subject would also be welcome...

DJ

[Stephen Lavin]

Dear Mr Hargrove, 

Thank you for you civil reply.

I note your directions to citations and locations of 'evidence' collected by Mr. Armstrong.

I also accept your desire and right to post summaries of the key points of the 'theory', which do have some very strong points.

However I believe your cause would be be made stronger if it was not presented in such a dogmatic manner, took on board the possibility of alternative explanations and desisted on the somewhat hostile replies made by some poster to those who offer those explanations. 

Best wishes 

[Stephen Lavin]

Dear Mr Joseph, 

Thank you for your reply.

I note and accept that there is a huge amount of 'evidence' sourced by Mr. Armstrong. 

In the same spirit, is it not also acceptable that there are a number of more feasible explanations to the reports and documents other than the core theory of 2 children chosen to be part of a project that would not have an outcome or be put into operation until years later.

In the world of espionage fiction, rather the plot of The Day of the Jackal as opposed to the movie Salt.

If these possibilities could be outlined or even acknowledged in the supporting documentation and websites it would give a more balanced approach to the theories presented.

As I stated in my previous post, I think the majority would not deny that there is clear evidence of impersonation of L.H.O. However, is it not more feasible that whoever was in charge of any such project would use identity theft methods to provide covers and ID for these people who would have been chosen for their resemblance to L.H.O. at the time of the project rather than gamble that the other young boy resembled him at that time and had not changed his views of the project as he matured. 

Regarding my thoughts, I will try to be as concise as possible. After some 38 years of interest in this subject and life experience, one of my thoughts is that L.H.O was 'talent spotted' for intelligence work on entry into the Marine Corp, but as he progressed his personality and political views were noted as unsuitable and he was then manipulated. He became the 'useful idiot' and was allowed and enabled to 'defect' in the hope that this would have some impact on the Soviets intelligence gathering, especially re the U2 project. He was unaware of this manipulation and therefore played his part perfectly. The Soviets, as testimony from their officials show, clearly did not 'buy into' this project when they observed and evaluated this young man and thus after his bizarre actions in Moscow, sent him off to the provinces where he would bother no one, whilst they could claim to be treating a troubled individual with humanity.

L.H.O as per his personality and his later recollections that are on record saw the reality of the Soviet system and returned home. The US authorities and agencies allowed him back as they still saw him as the 'useful idiot'. 

Meanwhile, from the time L.H.O has been declared as not suitable as a genuine agent by both superpowers, a number of men who bear a resemblance to him pop up in various locations claiming to be L.H.O, each making statements almost in the style of a 'soundbite' on opposing sides of political subjects and opinions; thus clearly setting up a trail of 'evidence' that can be used to implicate him in whatever the ultimate 'plot' may be - ie the project covered all possibilities that existed in any war gaming / strategic planning.

He could therefore be set up as a patsy for any number of plots.

It is feasible that a large part of the undoubted 'cover up' after the assassination was to disguise the various intelligence agencies' existing knowledge of their relationships with or activities of L.H.O, their part in his 'defection' and any connection to his activities leading up to assassination.

Hope this helps.

Best wishes

Stephen 

 

 

[John Butler]

Jim H, David J, and John A,

I am not an old member of the Forum.  I believe December, 2016 is when I applied for membership.  I don't know the old timers on the Forum except for looking at old threads.

Are Lance Payette, Jeremey Bojczuk, and Steve Lavin old members?  Or, are they new members?  Judging from the number of post by Misters Bojczuk and Lavin they are new members.

I know Tracy Parnell has been around a long time.  I don't know much about Lance Payette.  These four seem to be the most prominent anti-Harvey and Lee proponents in recent times.  Does this have any meaning?

IMO, it does have meaning.  The meaning is that David Josephs and Jim Hargrove are making some folks uncomfortable with their assessments of the Harvey and Lee (I hate to say conspiracy) experience.  Once again, in my opinion you are getting closer to the truth, bringing on new truths, and the possibility of new truths.  It is making some folks uncomfortable with this thread.

All I can say is keep up the good work on Harvey and Lee and keep this thread running.  I will do what I can to support you three as time goes along.

Edited February 19, 2020 by John Butler