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

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

That's why the anonymous phone call to Mrs. Jack Tippit is fascinating.... if there's any truth to it a whole lot of weird stuff about Oswald is explained.  Read it again (I've added some boldface):

Richard,

There is a lot of fascinating work Jim, John K, myself and others did on the Tippit phone call in this thread.  We improved information on the Tippit phone call from what others had done in the past.  Still we didn't get to where we wanted to go.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

On 8/22/2020 at 4:00 AM, Richard Booth said:

Has anyone considered the idea that Harvey and Lee were fraternal twins who were separated at birth?

Here's another thought that doesn't require intelligence backtracking to 1939....what if Marguerite did have twins, but gave up one at birth? Or was so distraught at the idea, hospital staff told her one passed away, but really hadn't and went into the orphanage system?  Oswald's father had just died, and she would have been left with the daunting task of raising 4 boys on her own... They are given the same name, maybe due to a clerical error or laziness. One is raised by Marguerite, one goes into the orphanage system...when the intelligence apparatus is formed, they concoct an idea to look for twins who were separated at birth to use in spycraft sometime in the early 50's? In 1939, Russia was not our enemy, and wasn't really seen as a threat until the development of atomic and nuclear bombs and the space race of the 50's. They even could have been identical...there is a condition that occurs that I can't remember the name of offhand where the child develops "looks" and mannerisms of the surrogate "parent". Of course nurishment and nurture, environment...may play into it too. Just a thought!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw a documentary called Three Identical Strangers which is based on the true story of three identical triplets who were separated at birth as part of an experiment to determine the impact of nature versus nurture on human development. They were raised in three different homes, one blue-collar, one middle class and one affluent, and these homes had different parenting styles.

One of the them enrolled in college and noticed that people were addressing him by a different name, which was the name of one of his brothers who attended the same college. Publicity about them reached the third brother who realized that he was related to them. After they reunited they discovered that they had been part of a long-term experiment.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, John Kowalski said:

Saw a documentary called Three Identical Strangers which is based on the true story of three identical triplets who were separated at birth as part of an experiment to determine the impact of nature versus nurture on human development. They were raised in three different homes, one blue-collar, one middle class and one affluent, and these homes had different parenting styles.

One of the them enrolled in college and noticed that people were addressing him by a different name, which was the name of one of his brothers who attended the same college. Publicity about them reached the third brother who realized that he was related to them. After they reunited they discovered that they had been part of a long-term experiment.

 

I'm familiar with this.

For me it further solidifies at least one of the points I make regarding the "Harvey & Lee" theory: other people they came into contact with would have likely been aware of the name, familial, and physical similarities between the two boys and at some point someone would have mentioned to the other the fact that there was another boy with an almost identical name, similar appearance, and who had family members with the exact same names.

That fact is what alerted Bobby Shafran to his brothers, as soon as people saw him they remarked on everything I mentioned above and he found it odd enough to look into.

I believe the same would have happened with Oswald. At some point some one of the many contacts they shared would mention the similarities to one of the supposed boys and the entire situation would have exploded. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rob Clark said:

Here's another thought that doesn't require intelligence backtracking to 1939....what if Marguerite did have twins, but gave up one at birth? Or was so distraught at the idea, hospital staff told her one passed away, but really hadn't and went into the orphanage system?  Oswald's father had just died, and she would have been left with the daunting task of raising 4 boys on her own... They are given the same name, maybe due to a clerical error or laziness. One is raised by Marguerite, one goes into the orphanage system...when the intelligence apparatus is formed, they concoct an idea to look for twins who were separated at birth to use in spycraft sometime in the early 50's? In 1939, Russia was not our enemy, and wasn't really seen as a threat until the development of atomic and nuclear bombs and the space race of the 50's. They even could have been identical...there is a condition that occurs that I can't remember the name of offhand where the child develops "looks" and mannerisms of the surrogate "parent". Of course nurishment and nurture, environment...may play into it too. Just a thought!

Thanks Rob, I appreciate your thoughts on this and they were offered in the spirit in which mine were given. It's important to examine different ideas in a constructive way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2020 at 8:56 PM, Richard Booth said:
On 8/23/2020 at 7:03 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Well I suppose that could be the case, but only if Harvey was a masochist. He was, after all, beat up just for having a northern accent. Yeah, if he liked being beat up I can see him wanting to make his beatings worse by speaking a foreign language. Oh, and let's make it a language associated with communism!

Nah... I don't think so Richard.

 

Expand  

 

 

I'm still not buying it---if he's willing to espouse support for Marxism and Communism as a child that's going to bring the exact same sort of ridicule that speaking Russian is going to bring.

 

What makes you think that Oswald was (openly) espousing support for Marxism and Communism in junior high school?

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Richard Booth writes:

As Richard points out, the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense hasn't been thought out properly.

The problem is:

- If the defector Oswald was not a native speaker of Russian, the 'Harvey and Lee' theory breaks down because the theory requires him to have been a native speaker.

- And if the defector Oswald was a native speaker of Russian, the 'Harvey and Lee' theory breaks down because the long-term doppelganger scheme was not necessary to fulfil its own stated purpose.

Worryingly, people have been peddling this theory for twenty years or more, and none of them appear to have actually examined the theory's basic premise.

I take issue with you referring to H&L related research as "doctrine." That seems designed as some kind of insult, as if it's an ideology or a religion.

I find the H&L material to be very interesting and I've got some questions about it, and acknowledge that some parts of it could be incorrect. By your rationale that would mean I am not abiding by "doctrine." Of course, there isn't any sort of doctrine that's just designed to insult people. 

There could be many different variables, many different conditions or situations involved here that we are simply unaware of and I think it's important to acknowledge that. 

I'm here because I am interested in H&L and the evidence presented in that book which is incredibly compelling, and if there are some speculative things that could be wrong, well, that's fine--I don't demand perfection and I think it's insulting to refer to discussions of this subject as "doctrine" and then use reductionist thought processes to try to invalidate something you obviously have no belief in. 

I probably will not reply to any other comments of this nature because I am interested in productive discussion of this subject and am not interested in arguing with folks whose interest is merely to "disprove" something. It's the same reason I don't argue with people who say the world is flat, or debate with lone nutters. It's a waste of time.

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

 

What makes you think that Oswald was (openly) espousing support for Marxism and Communism in junior high school?

 

 

One example is when Oswald displayed pro-Communist literature to William Timmer when he was approximately 13/14 years old (in 1953) -- that is 8th grade.

Then there is the time he advocated for Communism at William Wulf's house and got kicked out, though he was 20 then.

For those anti-H&L folks who claim the Timmer information is incorrect, I suppose they would say it never happened. Those same folks put the Pfisterers time period at 1955 rather than 1959, which would have him advocating for it at 15/16 years old.

So you've got him advocating for Marxism and Communism when he's 13/14 years old, and still doing so when he's about 19/20, which tends to indicate to me that he probably advocated for it more than just these two times over a consistent period of time. Probably did so for as long as he was familiar with the ideology.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Richard Booth said:

I take issue with you referring to H&L related research as "doctrine." That seems designed as some kind of insult, as if it's an ideology or a religion.

I find the H&L material to be very interesting and I've got some questions about it, and acknowledge that some parts of it could be incorrect. By your rationale that would mean I am not abiding by "doctrine." Of course, there isn't any sort of doctrine that's just designed to insult people. 

There could be many different variables, many different conditions or situations involved here that we are simply unaware of and I think it's important to acknowledge that. 

I'm here because I am interested in H&L and the evidence presented in that book which is incredibly compelling, and if there are some speculative things that could be wrong, well, that's fine--I don't demand perfection and I think it's insulting to refer to discussions of this subject as "doctrine" and then use reductionist thought processes to try to invalidate something you obviously have no belief in. 

I probably will not reply to any other comments of this nature because I am interested in productive discussion of this subject and am not interested in arguing with folks whose interest is merely to "disprove" something. It's the same reason I don't argue with people who say the world is flat, or debate with lone nutters. It's a waste of time.

 

Well said Richard.

 

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

 

What makes you think that Oswald was (openly) espousing support for Marxism and Communism in junior high school?

 

 

One example is when Oswald displayed pro-Communist literature to William Timmer when he was approximately 13/14 years old (in 1953) -- that is 8th grade.

 

But my point was that Oswald, having been beat up at school merely for having a northern accent, would surely have been cautious not to do other unpopular things at school. Like speaking Russian or saying communism is a good thing.

William Timmer, on the other hand, was only in the fourth grade. He was hardly a threat to Oswald. Oswald could say anything he wanted without fear of being bullied.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Richard Booth said:

 

One example is when Oswald displayed pro-Communist literature to William Timmer when he was approximately 13/14 years old (in 1953) -- that is 8th grade.

Then there is the time he advocated for Communism at William Wulf's house and got kicked out, though he was 20 then.

For those anti-H&L folks who claim the Timmer information is incorrect, I suppose they would say it never happened. Those same folks put the Pfisterers time period at 1955 rather than 1959, which would have him advocating for it at 15/16 years old.

So you've got him advocating for Marxism and Communism when he's 13/14 years old, and still doing so when he's about 19/20, which tends to indicate to me that he probably advocated for it more than just these two times over a consistent period of time. Probably did so for as long as he was familiar with the ideology.  

 

"I Led 3 Lives" first aired in 1953, so the same year Oswald allegedly started to display his left-wing leanings. For a 13-year-old to become fascinated with a political ideology as complicated as Communism is a rare and remarkable thing. (Most adults cannot comprehend the philosophical and economic ideas that form the basis of Marxism.) However, playing the role of your favorite TV character in real life is more like the behavior you'd expect from a person that age.

I think Oswald was never genuinely interested in Communisum. He never met a real communist in his life. And a real communist would not subscribe to both a Stalinist and a Trotksyite newspaper.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

"I Led 3 Lives" first aired in 1953, so the same year Oswald allegedly started to display his left-wing leanings. For a 13-year-old to become fascinated with a political ideology as complicated as Communism is a rare and remarkable thing. (Most adults cannot comprehend the philosophical and economic ideas that form the basis of Marxism.) However, playing the role of your favorite TV character in real life is more like the behavior you'd expect from a person that age.

I think Oswald was never genuinely interested in Communisum. He never met a real communist in his life. And a real communist would not subscribe to both a Stalinist and a Trotksyite newspaper.

I have a similar experience in life and I believe a great deal of it all depends on environment and upbringing. I have a complicated political ideology, but I tend to as a blanket statement say that I am a Communist. (Considering where I live and work, I often have interesting conversations.) I came to all this though at a young age, and by the time I was 15 was more of a Communist than a Capitalist. While I'm more "learned" now, much of my knowledge at that time, and even through the years of Oswald's short life was more superficial than true understanding. I still to this day lean the way I lean and many of my beliefs derive directly from experiences from those times.

My "interest" was sparked by my experiences and as a result of a being a product of the various "systems" I was a product of. Interesting enough, many of my early year experiences mimic Oswald's early years.

I only mention all of this to say for many people, their political interest and leanings begin developing at a young age and I believe Oswald was one of these people. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

I think Oswald was never genuinely interested in Communisum. He never met a real communist in his life. And a real communist would not subscribe to both a Stalinist and a Trotksyite newspaper.

I've never come across a plausible explanation of why Oswald would be flaunting two ideologicaly opposed newspapers in the backyard photographs, if he actually was the left-winger he claimed to be. It's like someone claiming to be a religious believer, and flaunting both a Bible and a Quran.

Either Oswald's understanding of the ideology was very superficial indeed, or he was pretending. Since he associated in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 with so many right-wingers and so few left-wingers, I think we know the answer to that one.

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

I've never come across a plausible explanation of why Oswald would be flaunting two ideologicaly opposed newspapers in the backyard photographs, if he actually was the left-winger he claimed to be. It's like someone claiming to be a religious believer, and flaunting both a Bible and a Quran.

Either Oswald's understanding of the ideology was very superficial indeed, or he was pretending. Since he associated in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 with so many right-wingers and so few left-wingers, I think we know the answer to that one.

Jeremy,

I think Oswald was a very intelligent person, much more intelligent than some people give him credit for. He learned Russian in a remarkably short time. I'm sure he would've been able to understand the not so subtle difference between Stalinism and Trotskyism, if he'd wanted to.

Oswald was clearly an agent provocateur, in my opinion. The Fairplay for Cuba Committee warned him not to distribute pro-Castro leaflets in New Orleans. And yet he did it anyway. Some weeks later the FBI takes him of the watch-list. After he'd openly advertised his support for America's sworn enemy! Oswald was on a mission for the FBI to discredit the FCC, which was probably run by former FBI officer Guy Banister.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Jeremy,

I think Oswald was a very intelligent person, much more intelligent than some people give him credit for. He learned Russian in a remarkably short time. I'm sure he would've been able to understand the not so subtle difference between Stalinism and Trotskyism, if he'd wanted to.

Oswald was clearly an agent provocateur, in my opinion. The Fairplay for Cuba Committee warned him not to distribute pro-Castro leaflets in New Orleans. And yet he did it anyway. Some weeks later the FBI takes him of the watch-list. After he'd openly advertised his support for America's sworn enemy! Oswald was on a mission for the FBI to discredit the FCC, which was probably run by former FBI officer Guy Banister.

Didn't Oswald also write a letter to the FPCC (national level) and tell them that he got into a street fight with some "gusanos" and this letter was written before he got into the fight with Bringuier? 

That whole street demonstration looked to me like an obvious provocation. There were cameras everywhere waiting to capture it, Oswald writes this letter about it happening before it actually happens, he demands to be arrested when he did not have to be, he asks to speak to an FBI agent when he's arrested, following the demonstration he appears on a radio program that is connected to an intelligence operation: Butler and INCA connected to the WDSU radio program. 

To me the whole FPCC thing was artificial. I think Oswald was participating in something and it was later used against him to paint him as a Castro supporter. At the time that he did it, that was probably not the reason for doing it (to incriminate Oswald) but rather had something to do with infiltrating the FPCC or discrediting it.

It's almost as if Oswald's actions were mostly ineffective (the false defection, the FPCC operation) but later become convenient and useful. 

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...