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

On 10/5/2019 at 4:33 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Let's start with the relevant parts of his two characters' biographies. Harvey and Lee, p.23:

p.897:

(N.B. The bold-face in these quotations is part of the original text's bizarre typography.)

p.946:

pp.946-7:

In these passages from his holy text, the prophet Armstrong has revealed unto us a central, eternal truth of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine: it was 'Lee' who had undergone the mastoidectomy operation, and it was 'Harvey' who was buried in the grave.

 

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

For the fourth time: is there a plausible, respectable reason why Armstrong did not even mention the mastoidectomy defect in his book?

As predicted, Mr. B whines about his own misrepresentations of the mastoidectomy in Harvey and Lee, but he is clearly afraid to debate any of the other topics I have presented in this thread. Why is that?

Why is he afraid to discuss the clear evidence that, for example:

  • 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.
  • I have clearly gone on record and said that it is my belief that it was the Russian-speaking Oswald all along who had a mastoidectomy and that Hoover found out and did what he always did: faked the evidence.  But Mr. B is afraid to discuss any of the topics above because he knows he will lose the debate.  

Maybe if I introduce a new topic Mr. B will respond, but I’m not holding my breath.  Anyway....

In October of 1963, in what I suspect was a test by the assassination plotters to see if one Oswald could successfully appear as the other during close inspection, Texas Employment Commission employee Laura Kittrell, interviewed both Oswalds.  She was able to distinguish between the two and accurately described both in an interview with the HSCA’s Gaeton Fonzi.  Below is an excerpt of Mr. Fonzi’s report.

Kittrell.gif

I doubt Mr. B will want to talk about Ms. Kitrrell’s experience, or about any of the other topics above.  Instead, he will just whine on and on and on and on about the mastoidectomy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And right there we have another solid piece of evidence for the Harvey & Lee hypothesis. A hypothesis which I believe to be factual because of its overwhelming evidence.

In contrast, Jeremy has virtually nothing in his arsenal of arguments and has to resort to the weak mastoidectomy question. Jim has just given a perfectly reasonable explanation for both Oswalds appearing to have had a mastoidectomy. Including proof that authorities suspected an Oswald imposter when he was still very young (only 20 years old), a fact that supports the idea of a young-Oswald double.

Another reasonable explanation is simply that BOTH Oswalds may have had mastoidectomies as children. I did some research on this a few years ago and found that mastoidectomies were fairly common back then. I performed some rough calculations which indicated that about one in 40 children at the time underwent the surgical procedure. The procedure was readily performed at any sign of mastoid infection because the complications of mastoiditis -- including death -- were rather dire. It was then the number one killer of children.

Thanks, Sandy.  Your clear analyses are always most appreciated!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeremy and his ilk like to say it is typical of us Harvey & Lee adherents to wave off any evidence contradicting the H&L theory. But that is simply not the case. It is in fact he and his ilk who do so. They either ignore H&L evidence or come up with highly unlikely and even ridiculous "innocent" explanations, and then instead use weak points like the mastoidectomy question to argue against H&L.

Here are some statistics that make my point. How likely is it that a clerical error is what caused Oswald's school records to show that he attended Beauregard Junior High when he was still in New York, for the full semester and with passing grades? How often is that mistake made in America's public school system? I'd say maybe once among a million students. In contrast, what are the odds that both Oswalds had a mastoidectomy rather than just one of them? About one in forty.

Dividing the one-in-40 odds by the one-in-a-million odds, we get 25,000. Therefore it is 25,000 more likely that the school records indicate there being two Oswalds than the mastoidectomy scars indicate there was only one.

No wonder Jeremy and his ilk ignore the school records.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not been an active proponent of this theory, but appears to me that there is more evidence supporting Harvey and Lee than evidence that contradicts it. The school records are certainly puzzling and difficult to dismiss as an error.  I had not heard Laura Kittrell's story before, and I found it compelling, thanks @Jim Hargrove

The Hoover memo and the reports of Oswald driving are also strong indicators that at the very least someone was using his identity.

Edited by Denny Zartman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some facts that Jim does not understand or says he doesn’t. I cannot explain every single anomaly (to his satisfaction anyway) nor can anyone else, but the H&L theory has been discussed to death right here at EF with multi-page threads. Most researchers, even here at EF where conspiracy theories dominate, do not give it credence as an informal poll here showed. Most researchers understand that if an explanation is provided that refutes the theory that Jim or Sandy or another apologist will simply move the goalposts to their advantage and soldier on. BTW, the answer to Jeremy's question is Armstrong did not tell his readers that the theory he was pushing was already refuted by the exhumation because he was hoping they wouldn't notice. It is the same technique you see in YouTube videos pushing 9/11 theories where they show you an amazing "fact" and then go on to the next amazing "fact" before you have time to think hard about it.

The H&L theory is based almost entirely on mistaken witnesses and mistakes in the record. Yes, there will be times when a reasonable person can think "wow, look at that" and "gee I can't explain that." This happened to Joe Nick Potoski (a good journalist and not a quack or anything) when he looked at the theory. He was particularly swayed by the fact that he knew Frank Kudlaty who he respected. Of course, Patoski wasn’t aware that Jack White had gotten to Kudlaty and filled his head with nonsense and only then did Kudlaty “remember” that the FBI had “confiscated” records.

The fact is that witnesses cannot be believed absent any other information. A couple real world examples. The old show “Forensic Files” had an episode where a woman was raped. The police found a suspect and the woman identified the man and swore he was the attacker. The police were particularly convinced that the woman was correct in her identification since she seemed to take the time to observe other things from the three-hour ordeal and describe them in detail. However, forensic testing showed the suspect was not the perpetrator. Later, the police found another suspect. When showed a photo, the victim said he was not the man who attacked her. Trouble is, forensic testing proved he was the rapist beyond any doubt.

Another case I have mentioned before is the Richard Matt and David Sweat escape from upstate New York which has been turned into a docudrama on Showtime. When they escaped from prison, over 2000 people said that they had seen them all over the state. Guess how many of those people actually saw them? Two. Not a good track record. Were all of those people lying? Certainly not all of them, many undoubtedly believed that they had seen the escapees, but the evidence proved that Matt and Sweat never left a small geographical area. So, witnesses can and do make mistakes and misidentifications, especially in high profile cases.

As for mistakes in records, the H&L people don’t seem to understand that this happens all the time in the real world. And in the case of LHO, who moved over twenty times during his childhood, you have that as a complicating factor. You don’t even have to argue about mistaken records in my opinion to disbelieve H&L. Just take the fact that nobody who knew the “original” Marguerite came forward to say that the Marguerite they saw on TV was not the woman they knew. It simply defies belief that out of the hundreds of people who probably knew Marguerite, one would not come forward. Of course, Jim thinks that the all-powerful CIA simply paid them all off or threatened them or whatever. And that was enough to silence them and all of their children for all time. No deathbed confessions or notes left in a safety deposit box-just a whole bunch of people conveniently silenced for all time.

The people who believe H&L want to believe it for whatever reason. Jim and Armstrong may be hoping for a movie deal as some have suggested and they may get one someday. But H&L has had its day in the research community and it has come and gone. If you don’t believe me, take the theory to Joe Nick Potoski (who is already sympathetic) or any good journalist. Then watch as they gradually distance themselves after studying ALL of the evidence carefully. And then wait for Jim and company to say, “Yes but they are in on the conspiracy.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

No wonder Jeremy and his ilk ignore the school records.

Nobody is ignoring anything, they simply do not wish to rehash old news. Anyone can do a search here and find multi-page threads discussing the school records or go to Greg Parker's site (where he has a link titled "alternate explanations") and read a concise explanation including discussions with Sandy himself. If you interpret the records Sandy's way only and see them in a vacuum devoid of any other evidence, it is possible to believe something is amiss. The key to the whole thing is that it shows the date admitted as January, 1954. That destroys the whole theory right there, you don't even need to go beyond that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Note the phrase "look like". Perhaps there's an alternative explanation for Armstrong's apparently dishonest behaviour. Mr B has invited Jim three times (without success, so far) to provide an explanation other than the obvious one: Armstrong was deliberately ignoring evidence that seriously undermined his theory.


I don't understand Jeremy's accusation.

Suppose you and I have two pals, each with a mastoidectomy scar. Should we conclude that therefore they are the same person? Of course not! The most likely explanation is that they both had the surgery. Probably when they were kids.

So why conclude that Harvey and Lee are the same person because of their scars?

Similarly, we don't conclude that Harvey and Lee are the same person just because they were both in the Marines. Or because they shopped at the same stores or slept the same hours. (Or whatever else they had in common.) In Jeremy's way of thinking, Armstrong should have reported every such coincidence as though it was of some importance. And his readers should have concluded that these meaningless coincidences undermine his theory.

No... the most logical thing to conclude from the fact that Harvey & Lee each had a mastoidectomy scar is that both had the surgery. I believe that John didn't mention anything about this scar issue because he didn't see it as an issue.

 

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The point is that the mastoidectomy defect contradicted the central element of the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy: the carefully detailed biographies of his two fictional characters. The wrong doppelganger was buried in the grave. Scientific evidence proved that Armstrong's theory was wrong. Armstrong must have known this. Yet he failed to even mention the problem. By doing so, he misled his readers.

 

There is no scientific evidence proving Armstrong's theory is wrong. If there were, I wouldn't believe the theory.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

No wonder Jeremy and his ilk ignore the school records.

Nobody is ignoring anything, they simply do not wish to rehash old news.


What old news? Neither you nor Jeremy nor anybody else has been able to explain the school records other than saying it was a massive clerical error. (Remember, a one in a million chance of that happening. What do you think the odds of that error occurring would be?)

 

35 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Anyone can do a search here and find multi-page threads discussing the school records or go to Greg Parker's site (where he has a link titled "alternate explanations") and read a concise explanation including discussions with Sandy himself.

 

Yes, by all means go look. You will find nothing other than the claim that school records have a massive clerical error. These H&L Deniers will have you think that these massive clerical errors happened all the time with Oswald. And -- funny thing -- they all make it look like there were two Oswalds. LOL!

 

35 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

If you interpret the records Sandy's way only and see them in a vacuum devoid of any other evidence, it is possible to believe something is amiss. The key to the whole thing is that it shows the date admitted as January, 1954. That destroys the whole theory right there, you don't even need to go beyond that.

 

Which clerical error is more likely to have occurred:

  1. The wrong date was put where we see "January, 1954."
  2. A full semester of classes and grades were inserted into the record.

I'd say that the odds of #1 happening are close to 100%... that is, virtually every student has at lease one error in their secondary school records. I say the odds of #2 happening are a million to one... that is, it happens to one student out of every million. (My "one in a million" odds is a very rough estimate, of course. It could really be closer to 100,000 to one or 10,000,000 to one.)

#1 is a much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much,  more likely error to have occurred. Thinking #2 occurred would be highly irrational, especially in light of all the other highly unlikely clerical errors H&L deniers would have us believe occurred.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is way to many straight forward facts that Jim Hargrove and Sandy Larsen keep pointing out to believe anything like "Scientific evidence proved that Armstrong's theory was wrong."

I am not interested in any "scientific evidence" provided by these folks.  It is hard to read their so-called proofs.  I haven't seen anything that would change my mind about the dental evidence provided by Sandy Larsen and Jim Hargrove.  I have seen anything that would change my mind about Lee Oswald being at Atsugi, Japan while Harvey Oswald was at Ping Tung, Taiwan at the same time. 

I just list two things here, but could go on and on.  Read Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong for the full details.  I highly recommend it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Here are some facts that Jim does not understand or says he doesn’t. I cannot explain every single anomaly (to his satisfaction anyway) nor can anyone else, but the H&L theory has been discussed to death right here at EF with multi-page threads. Most researchers, even here at EF where conspiracy theories dominate, do not give it credence as an informal poll here showed.

 

A lot of intelligent researcher DO believe in some variation of the H&L theory. But it doesn't matter. Truth is not a determined through polls or popularity contests.

 

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Most researchers understand that if an explanation is provided that refutes the theory that Jim or Sandy or another apologist will simply move the goalposts to their advantage and soldier on.

 

You are making that up.

 

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The H&L theory is based almost entirely on mistaken witnesses and mistakes in the record. Yes, there will be times when a reasonable person can think "wow, look at that" and "gee I can't explain that." This happened to Joe Nick Potoski (a good journalist and not a quack or anything) when he looked at the theory. He was particularly swayed by the fact that he knew Frank Kudlaty who he respected. Of course, Patoski wasn’t aware that Jack White had gotten to Kudlaty and filled his head with nonsense and only then did Kudlaty “remember” that the FBI had “confiscated” records.

 

You are making that up.

 

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The fact is that witnesses cannot be believed absent any other information. A couple real world examples. The old show “Forensic Files” had an episode where a woman was raped. The police found a suspect and the woman identified the man and swore he was the attacker. The police were particularly convinced that the woman was correct in her identification since she seemed to take the time to observe other things from the three-hour ordeal and describe them in detail. However, forensic testing showed the suspect was not the perpetrator. Later, the police found another suspect. When showed a photo, the victim said he was not the man who attacked her. Trouble is, forensic testing proved he was the rapist beyond any doubt.

 

This is irrelevant.

 

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Another case I have mentioned before is the Richard Matt and David Sweat escape from upstate New York which has been turned into a docudrama on Showtime. When they escaped from prison, over 2000 people said that they had seen them all over the state. Guess how many of those people actually saw them? Two. Not a good track record. Were all of those people lying? Certainly not all of them, many undoubtedly believed that they had seen the escapees, but the evidence proved that Matt and Sweat never left a small geographical area. So, witnesses can and do make mistakes and misidentifications, especially in high profile cases.

 

This is irrelevant.

 

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

As for mistakes in records, the H&L people don’t seem to understand that this happens all the time in the real world. And in the case of LHO, who moved over twenty times during his childhood, you have that as a complicating factor.

 

Yes, mistakes do happen all the time. Just not the many monumental ones that you say happened to Oswald.

 

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

You don’t even have to argue about mistaken records in my opinion to disbelieve H&L. Just take the fact that nobody who knew the “original” Marguerite came forward to say that the Marguerite they saw on TV was not the woman they knew. It simply defies belief that out of the hundreds of people who probably knew Marguerite, one would not come forward. Of course, Jim thinks that the all-powerful CIA simply paid them all off or threatened them or whatever. And that was enough to silence them and all of their children for all time. No deathbed confessions or notes left in a safety deposit box-just a whole bunch of people conveniently silenced for all time.

 

I recall at least two people who said that they didn't recognize Marguerite, as posted by Jim. What makes you think we would have heard from others? I've seen many people years later who I didn't recognize. I didn't make a big deal about it or try to get it published in a newspaper. I just figured they'd changed. I suspect that many people experience this.

Case in point... my family recently attended my uncle's funeral. There was a short, old man with a long white beard sitting next to my sister. I had no idea who it was. Turns out it was her husband, the same one I'd known for almost fifty years. Boy was I embarrassed!

 

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The people who believe H&L want to believe it for whatever reason.

 

I believe H&L because the evidence for it is overwhelming. Statistically it is a slam dunk.

The people who don't believe it do so because they have a preconceived notion that something like that is too fantastic. They also wouldn't believe that the CIA assassinated foreign leaders, experimented with LSD on unsuspecting civilians, and funded their operations with drug smuggling, and that the US military had a false flag plan that would kill Americans, if there wasn't proof or widespread acceptance of them.

 

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Jim and Armstrong may be hoping for a movie deal as some have suggested and they may get one someday. But H&L has had its day in the research community and it has come and gone. If you don’t believe me, take the theory to Joe Nick Potoski (who is already sympathetic) or any good journalist. Then watch as they gradually distance themselves after studying ALL of the evidence carefully. And then wait for Jim and company to say, “Yes but they are in on the conspiracy.”

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You are making that up.

No, Greg Parker and others documented Jack White's coaching of Kudlaty. If Kudlaty had independently gone to the authorities (or even to Armstrong) and told a story of confiscated records, it would carry more weight. But he only told his story AFTER talking to Jack White and hearing Armstrong's thesis. Again, search here at EF and find the threads.

53 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

This is irrelevant.

No it's not. It goes to the credibility of eyewitness and the fact that much of the H&L theory is based on them. We have all heard reports of people released from prison after DNA analysis refuted eyewitness testimony. I just provided a case where the man would have been convicted without DNA. And BTW, the woman was planning to shoot the man who she thought had committed the crime-that is how convinced she was that he was the rapist. But he wasn't.

57 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I recall at least two people who said that they didn't recognize Marguerite, as posted by Jim. What makes you think we would have heard from others? I've seen many people years later who I didn't recognize. I didn't make a big deal about it or try to get it published in a newspaper. I just figured they'd changed. I suspect that many people experience this.

Case in point... my family recently attended my uncle's funeral. There was a short, old man with a long white beard sitting next to my sister. I had no idea who it was. Turns out it was her husband, the same one I'd known for almost fifty years. Boy was I embarrassed!

Your experience mirrors that of the Evans' which is the people Jim was referring to. They didn't think Marguerite was not the woman that they knew-in fact they said she was. They were just surprised how much she had changed since they last saw her. People change as your experience shows.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Statistically it is a slam dunk

If that is the case, take it to a statistician who should be able to easily prove it for you. And while you are at it, take it to a good investigative journalist and get it out to the masses. And take your dental theory to Linda Norton or someone who is qualified to help you. But I don't see that happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You are making that up.

No, Greg Parker and others documented Jack White's coaching of Kudlaty. If Kudlaty had independently gone to the authorities (or even to Armstrong) and told a story of confiscated records, it would carry more weight. But he only told his story AFTER talking to Jack White and hearing Armstrong's thesis. Again, search here at EF and find the threads.

 

Actually I was referring to the part of your post that I bolded when I said you were making  it up.

But since you bring this thing about Jack White up, let me ask you a question. Is there evidence that Kudlaty made that story up after talking to Jack White? Or are you assuming that to be the case?

This was about Oswald attending Stripling, was it not? Which the WC said he didn't, But Robert testified that he did, Marguerite testified that he did, a teacher said he did, and at least one student said he did. And then Kudlaty said he did. Sure does sound like Oswald went to Stripling.

Is there any evidence that Jack White coached Kudlaty?

I have a hard time believing that Jack White and John Armstrong have this sort of mystical power over people's minds, especially men's. The men I know are pretty head strong. I can't think of any who'd just go along with a story like that.

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I recall at least two people who said that they didn't recognize Marguerite, as posted by Jim. What makes you think we would have heard from others? I've seen many people years later who I didn't recognize. I didn't make a big deal about it or try to get it published in a newspaper. I just figured they'd changed. I suspect that many people experience this.

Case in point... my family recently attended my uncle's funeral. There was a short, old man with a long white beard sitting next to my sister. I had no idea who it was. Turns out it was her husband, the same one I'd known for almost fifty years. Boy was I embarrassed!

Your experience mirrors that of the Evans' which is the people Jim was referring to. They didn't think Marguerite was not the woman that they knew-in fact they said she was. They were just surprised how much she had changed since they last saw her. People change as your experience shows.

 

But Tracy, the only reason that I accepted that that man was my brother in law is because I was told he was. The reason the Evans talked as though that woman was really the real Marguerite was only because they were told she was. But really, I and the Evans did not recognize them and wouldn't have thought they were who they actually were had we not been told. And that was the whole point of my post. You said that if that was a fake Marguerite, surely an old friend of the real Marguerite would have come forward and said that she wasn't the real Marguerite. Which is effectively what the Evans did, and what I did about my brother in law, at first. If you don't see that then you ideology is blinding you from viewing this objectively.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Statistically it is a slam dunk

If that is the case, take it to a statistician who should be able to easily prove it for you.

 

I won't take it to a statistician because this is a simple probability problem. Taking this to a statistician would be like taking this:

1000 + 1000 = 2000

to a mathematician. Taking it to a bookie would be a better choice because bookies have a good sense of probability.

Even better is to take it to a smart person with common sense (which could be statistician or a bookie, but doesn't need to be) because, while the math is trivial, estimating sufficiently precise probabilities (of Oswald's unlikely events) is the hard part. For example, my one-in-a-million estimate of the school record being a clerical error. Recall that I thought it reasonable to say that the precise number was probably between one in 100,000 and one in 10,000,000.

Once you have reasonable probability estimates, you simply multiply them together to determine the probability of multiple events occurring. (The events need to be independent of each other for this to be true.) For example, suppose you throw two dice hoping to get snake eyes. Rolling a 1 (or any other number) on one dice has a one in six chance of occurring.The probability of rolling a 1 on the other dice is also one in six. The probability of rolling two ones will be 1/6  x  1/6 = 1/36, or one in 36. This means that if you rolled the dice 36 times, odds are that you will get snake eyes once.

Now back to Oswald... here's an example relevant to him. I've already said that the odds of his getting somebody else's grades for the fall of 1953 was one in a million. Now suppose that the odds of his accidentally getting a FAILED notation accidentally written on his dental record was one in 10,000. We can multiply these two probabilities together to determine the odds of both happening to him. Doing so gives 1/1,000,000  x  1/10,000  =  1/10,000,000,000. So the odds of both these things happening to one person -- Oswald in this case -- is only one in ten billion people.

This means that if there were 10 billion people in the world, these two events could only happen to one person in the world, and that lucky person would be Oswald. But there's a problem... the population of the world in the 1960s was only 2.5 billion. Which means that it would have been improbable for those two things to have happened to Oswald or any other individual.

Suppose we include one more statistic in this probability equation. How about this... what are the odds that a vice principal could be talked into lying about a student, saying that the student attended the school when in fact he didn't, and into saying that the FBI took the records and now they're lost. I'd estimate that the odds of that occurring would be about one in fifty. Multiplying 1/10,000,000,00 by 1/50 gives one in 500 billion. The population of the world would have to be 500 billion to produce one lucky sole to which these these three events happened. But, again, there were only 2.5 billion inhabitants on Earth at that time. And so it would have been virtually impossible for these three things to have happened to a single person. These three things -- two clerical errors and the corruption of a vice principal -- could not have happened to Oswald.

And it's worse than that. There are many other thing that happened to Oswald that made it look like there were two of him.

And that is why I say that statistically the Harvey & Lee theory is a slam dunk. There are so many things pointing to multiple Oswalds that it cannot be reasonably denied.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You said that if that was a fake Marguerite, surely an old friend of the real Marguerite would have come forward and said that she wasn't the real Marguerite. Which is effectively what the Evans did

No she didn't. And it is a shame that you guys keep pushing this myth. Here is what she said in context:

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 (emphasis added), but if you had known Margie before all this happened, you would see what I mean. She was beautiful. She had beautiful wavy hair.

So, I think it is you who lacks the objectivity to see that she simply was commenting on how Marguerite's appearance had changed, not that she was a different individual. 

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...