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

15 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

No there is no "evidence" that Kudlaty made up story.


And yet you claim Kudlaty did make up the story.

 

15 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

But there is evidence that Kudlaty and Jack White knew each other and White told him about H&L.


So what? That doesn't automatically mean that Kudlaty would lie for Jack White.
 

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

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The most shameful thing you and Mr. Parker are doing is to besmirch the name and memory of the late, great Jack White, in my opinion the most important researcher who ever graced the pages of this forum.  Shame on you both!

Jack White may have been the nicest guy on planet earth, but his theories have been authoritatively proven wrong time after time, be it on the "Moorman in the street" issue, the moon landing "hoax" or his support for the preposterous and insulting claim that no actual airplanes hit the World Trade Center on 9/11. This is someone in whom you expect us to trust?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John Butler said:

Jim Hargrove says:

"The most shameful thing you and Mr. Parker are doing is to besmirch the name and memory of the late, great Jack White, in my opinion the most important researcher who ever graced the pages of this forum.  Shame on you both!"

I would like to repeat this oh, about 100 or 200 times.  Jack White is one of my heroes in the Kennedy assassination research field.  I just wish I had gotten into this area earlier and could have corresponded with Jack White.  I would have loved to get my hands on his original photo material.  I would like to think I could point out a thing or two to him, but probably not.

A truly great man.

Thanks, John.  I was fortunate enough to meet Jack White once at a JFK conference in, I think, 1999.  I was just getting started following John Armstrong’s speeches and documents (his book was still years away), but Jack was kind enough to talk to me at length about the subject, and about his experiences at the HSCA, which sounded pretty harrowing.  RIP, Jack White!

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

Contrast this with the journalistic way David Lifton conducted his interview with McBride (partial transcript on my website if you care to read it).

And surely you posted Palmer McBride’s reaction to the intimidation he felt at the hands of Mr. Lifton, right? 

McBride1.jpg

McBride2.jpg

McBride3.jpg

McBride4.jpg

McBride5.jpg

McBride6.jpg

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

 

Tracy,

Mrs. Evans said, "That couldn't be Margie" because she didn't recognize that "old and haggard" woman.

Then she said, "but of course it was" because there the woman was in the national spotlight with everyone saying it was Margie.

What else could Mrs Evans say, that everybody was wrong?? No, Mrs. Evans had to accept that her old friend had changed so much that she was no longer recognizable.


You originally claimed that no acquaintance of Marguerite came forward to say that this woman didn't look like the Marguerite they knew. But that is precisely what Mrs. Evans did.

Nevertheless I do understand your need to interpret her "That couldn't be Margie" statement in another way so you can wave it off as nothing.

 

Well, let's leave it this way since we are getting nowhere (which is where these conversations always end up). You certainly are free to interpret her statement anyway you want, as am I. The readers here can decide for themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Jack White may have been the nicest guy on planet earth, but his theories have been authoritatively proven wrong time after time, be it on the "Moorman in the street" issue, the moon landing "hoax" or his support for the preposterous and insulting claim that no actual airplanes hit the World Trade Center on 9/11. This is someone in whom you expect us to trust?

You make a good point. And it is certainly not my intention to smear Jack White as Jim H. maintains. But, he did play loose with the facts in a few cases and those need to be pointed out.

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

And surely you posted Palmer McBride’s reaction to the intimidation he felt at the hands of Mr. Lifton, right? 

The transcript does not convey any sense of intimidation. Only the confusion he felt as to why he made the incorrect statements that he did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tracy Parnell writes:

Quote

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.

Exactly! Jim has now had four opportunities to think up a reason for Armstrong's behaviour that doesn't make his master look like a snake-oil salesman. Each time, he has dodged the question. It looks as though even Jim accepts that Armstrong knew that his theory had been debunked, and hoped that no-one would notice. Welcome to the club, Jim!

Quote

The H&L theory is based almost entirely on mistaken witnesses and mistakes in the record. ... the Richard Matt and David Sweat escape from upstate New York ... 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.

If the proportion of false to real sightings was more than 1000 to one in an ordinary prison escape, how many false sightings must there have been of Oswald, the central figure in the biggest news story for years? I wonder how many of those alleged sightings of Oswald were actually rejected by Armstrong. A thousand? A hundred? Ten? Any at all? Jim could ask his master to provide us with a list.

Quote

Jim and Armstrong may be hoping for a movie deal as some have suggested and they may get one someday.

I wasn't aware of that! Perhaps Armstrong was motivated by money after all.

I'd heard a suggestion that Jim was on Armstrong's payroll, but I wasn't sure whether to believe it. After all, Armstrong wasn't likely to sell many copies of an expensive 1000-page avant-garde novel with bizarre typography even if he paid someone to promote it, so why waste his money? But the Hollywood angle would explain the inconsistency in Jim's evangelical behaviour: copying and pasting excerpts from holy writ, and repeating the same long-debunked points of doctrine over and over in thread after thread, while giving little if any attention to other far-out topics that obsess most tin-foil hatters, such as Lifton's body-alteration invention and all the photo fakery stuff. I'm not sure how the powers that be would react if it turned out that Jim was flooding the Ed Forum with 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense for financial reward (or the prospect of financial reward).

Can you imagine what would happen if Harvey and Lee: the Movie ever got made and was widely distributed? It would turn the JFK assassination into a radioactive laughing stock. The serious media, academics, documentary makers, they would all run a mile. No-one with a reputation to protect would go near the subject for years afterwards. That would be the ideal way to discredit reputable critics of the official line, so maybe it could get made for that reason.

But I'm sure the established film studios wouldn't touch it. They wouldn't be able to publicise the film as a serious take on the assassination once people became aware that the 'Harvey and Lee' theory had been partly thought up by some fantasist who believed that the moon landings were faked (see http://www.clavius.org/jackwhite.html).

It might work as a comedy, though. Watch those two lovable doppelgangers getting into scrapes! Laugh as they both get arrested in the Texas Theater and give the game away by telling the cops they were both named Oswald! Chortle as the wrong one gets buried in the grave! Plenty of comic potential there.

Harvey and Lee! the Musical might work too. I can imagine a big tap-dancing scene, featuring two precisely choreographed identical Oswalds, two Marguerites (one slim, one dumpy), the two surgeons who performed the two mastoidectomies, and a chorus of FBI agents faking thousands of documents in 4/4 time. "You've come a long way from New Orleans to Minsk, Harvey and Lee!" (with apologies to Seinfeld).

Quote

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

As Tracy has pointed out, all of the 'Harvey and Lee' talking points have been covered umpteen times already, here and elsewhere. If Jim and Sandy are, as they should be, serious about questioning the evidence for the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy (which of course they are not), they could start with these sites and then go on to use the Ed Forum's (not very good, in my experience) search function:

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

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

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

the most logical thing to conclude from the fact that Harvey & Lee each had a mastoidectomy scar is that both had the surgery.

"The fact"? These are two characters in a work of fiction that was very loosely based on real events. In this work of fiction, only one of the characters is described as having undergone a mastoidectomy operation. A scar conjured up from an imaginary operation on the other imaginary character in an imaginary hospital by an imaginary surgeon, is not a fact. Even by 'Harvey and Lee' standards, that's insane.

Sandy has actually fallen for a ludicrous explanation which I put forward as something that was so far out that not even the H & L gullibles would go for it; see point (d) in this post. Sandy, it was a joke! You weren't meant to take it seriously!

So far, the 'Harvey and Lee' school of thought has provided three contradictory explanations for the existence of a mastoidectomy defect on the body in the grave:

1 - Cecil B. d'Armstrong: fictional character A alone had the mastoidectomy, and fictional character B was buried in the grave.
2 - Jim 'best boy' Hargrove: fictional character B alone had the mastoidectomy and was buried in the grave.
3 - Sandy Larsen, winner of this year's Nobel Prize for Completely Unqualified Amateur Dental Analysis Based On A Quick Glance At Some Old Photos: both fictional character A and fictional character B had the mastoidectomy.

The sane interpretation is that the historical, one and only, Lee Harvey Oswald had the mastoidectomy and was buried in the grave. But that wasn't the question that Jim has been avoiding answering.

Let's give Jim another go at answering the question he has avoided four times already, by giving us an explanation of Armstrong's apparently dishonest behaviour. The exhumation autopsy report described a mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave. According to Armstrong's book, however, the body in the grave had not undergone a mastoidectomy; the operation had been carried out on the other fictional doppelganger, the one who was not buried in the grave. If the scientists' report was true, the theory which Armstrong put forward in his book was false.

The report was published two decades earlier than Armstrong's book. When he wrote Harvey and Lee, Armstrong knew that evidence existed which, if true, debunked his theory. In his book, he didn't even try to explain away the mastoidectomy defect. He decided instead to completely ignore the evidence which showed his theory to be false, thereby misleading his readers. For the fifth time, can Jim think of a reason for this behaviour that doesn't make Armstrong look like a con artist?

Remember, the question isn't about whether this or that person had actually had a mastoidectomy, or whether this or that piece of evidence had been faked like all the other evidence that contradicts the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy. It's about Armstrong's treatment of the evidence. The existence of a mastoidectomy defect contradicted a central part of his theory, and he didn't bother to tell his readers about it. Why did Armstrong not mention the mastoidectomy defect?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeffrey Reilley writes:

Quote

do the folks that take this theory with a grain of salt not believe that Oswald was impersonated in the months leading to the assassination?

There are two serious questions: was Oswald impersonated (and if so, when), and was he acting on behalf of one or more government agencies at some points in his life? There's good evidence that the answer is yes, in both cases (sorry, Lance). He does appear to have been impersonated in Mexico City, and possibly in Dallas too. For the Mexico City episode, see https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html; the Silvia Odio incident is a plausible example of impersonation in Dallas (see arguments for and against here, here and here). Oswald's defection and his actions in New Orleans, in particular the many accounts that have him working with Guy Banister, make it almost undeniable that he was involved in some way with one or another government agency.

But the notion that two boys, from two different parts of the world, native speakers of two different languages, were selected to take part in an elaborate doppelganger scheme from an early age, and that more than a decade later the boys had magically grown up to look identical (or not quite identical, depending on the needs of the theory at any given moment), and that on the orders of the CIA the two Oswalds followed each other around Dallas on the day of the assassination so that one could frame the other, is just about the most absurd explanation for impersonation that you could think of. If a lone-nutter wanted to satirise the tin-foil hat wing of Warren Report critics, he couldn't have done a better job than the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy.

The idea that if someone thinks Oswald was impersonated, he or she must also accept all the 'Harvey and Lee' baggage, is seriously misguided. Question the evidence for each instance of possible impersonation, as happened recently with the Texas Theater incident, and you'll see how much of the 'Harvey and Lee' narrative stands up (answer: not a lot). The evidence for impersonation is stronger without the paranoid baggage.

Most of the people who go to the trouble of arguing against the 'Harvey and Lee' theory are not supporters of the lone-gunman theory. They are rational critics of the lone-gunman theory who are aware of the harm this sort of paranoid speculation can do to the public perception of the JFK assassination debate. Lone-gunman sympathisers (Tracy Parnell is an honourable exception) usually just point to the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense and claim that it shows how irrational everyone is who questions the official account. Lance Payette is a good example of this, as is John McAdams: 

Quote

The whole rickety structure is built on unreliable witness testimony, carefully selected and inaccurate documents, and a mountain of implausible supposition. Which makes it a fitting metaphor for JFK assassination conspiracy theories generally.

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

What's ironic about all of this is that the 'Harvey and Lee' version of the assassination is essentially the Warren Report's version, but with added paranoia:

- Was Oswald on the sixth floor, taking pot shots at Kennedy? WR: you bet he was! H & L: you bet he was!
- Was Oswald on Tenth Street, shooting Officer Tippit? WR: yes, sirree! H & L: yes, sirree!

Take the Warren Report, add a fictional doppelganger or two and a huge portion of paranoid speculation, and you have the 'Harvey and Lee' theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan Cohen writes:

Quote

Jack White may have been the nicest guy on planet earth, but his theories have been authoritatively proven wrong time after time, be it on the "Moorman in the street" issue, the moon landing "hoax" or his support for the preposterous and insulting claim that no actual airplanes hit the World Trade Center on 9/11. This is someone in whom you expect us to trust?

White's 'Moorman in the street' nonsense is taken to pieces here: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_-_part_2.html.

White's moon landings hoax nonsense is taken to pieces here: http://www.clavius.org/jackwhite.html. That site includes a transcript of White's public humiliation at the HSCA hearings.

I don't follow the 9/11 stuff, but it doesn't surprise me that White went for the most paranoid interpretation possible. What a lunatic.

Jonathan's comment prompted me to dig out my old copy of James Fetzer's comic masterpiece, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. If any of you has a copy, turn to page 99 and be prepared to have a good laugh (or cry). Here, White reproduces three photographs of the sixth-floor rifle, each taken side-on but at a slightly different angle, with the obvious result that the proportions of parts of the rifle look slightly different in each image. White took this to mean that they were three different rifles: "Even though all three guns had the same serial number, it appears that the photos show different guns." [Slaps forehead]

Nil nisi bonum and all that, but Jack White was a 100% tin-foil hat loon. It is only fitting that he had a hand in inventing the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy.

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

I wasn't aware of that! Perhaps Armstrong was motivated by money after all.

I'd heard a suggestion that Jim was on Armstrong's payroll, but I wasn't sure whether to believe it.

It’s remarkable how much Mr. B can talk without considering real evidence. Mr. B appears to be afraid of the evidence.

With his typical bloviations, Mr. B is eager to discuss ANYTHING except the evidence that there were two Oswalds.  He has, for example, obliquely accused me of being on John Armstrong’s payroll.  He certainly has no evidence that I’m being paid by John, because such evidence simply doesn’t exist. John has never paid me a dime for my work supporting his research.  I support it because I believe in it, because I sincerely believe you cannot understand the Kennedy assassination if you do not understand Harvey and Lee.

I really enjoy it when Mr. B. uses propaganda tricks to attack me.  That gives me the chance to discuss more evidence, and it is simply remarkable that so much evidence exists for two Oswalds.  Even more so since the evidence we have escaped the dragnet to suppress it put out by  J. Edgar Hoover beginning just hours after the assassination. 

All Mr. B can do is hide behind the mastoidectomy and talk about no other evidence whatsoever for the two Oswalds that I have presented here.  He is unwilling to discuss, for example, the clear evidence that:

  • 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. B, of course, will not discuss ANY of these issues because he knows he will lose a debate with me.  And so he talks about anything but the evidence.

But I enjoy giving Mr. B a hard time, so I’m going to talk about the Social Security evidence that has been released by the various government “investigations” into “Lee Harvey Oswald” and the assassination of JFK.

In short, the Social Security Administration reported that the lifetime earnings of “Lee Harvey Oswald”, from 1951 to 1963, amounted to $3306.85, the exact amount he earned in just the years 1962 and 1963.  Why?  Because the infamous W-2 forms from “Oswald’s” teen-aged employment years are fraudulent.

From our website:

---------------------------------------------

Below are the grand totals for Oswald's income in 1962 and 1963:

Employer:

Earnings:

William B. Reily & Co.

422.25

"

191.25

Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, Inc.

727.80

"

945.69

"

121.67

Leslie Welding

636.50

Texas Book Depository

261.68

 

 

Grand Total

$3306.85

 

Less than a month after receiving a completed "Application for Survivors Insurance Benefits" filled out by "Marina M. Oswald," the SSA office in Dallas had completed a "Determination of Award" form. Below is the first part of that form:
Award.jpg
The amount shown under the heading "Total Earnings" is, according to the Social Security Administration, Oswald's total earnings from 1951 (First Base Yr. or Starting Date) through 1963 (Last Base Yr. or Closing Date). Oswald's SSA records were safely tucked away in their files from the date of his employment at Dolly Shoe (1955) to his death on November 24, 1963. Yet within two months following the assassination the SSA failed to include any of Oswald's pre-1962 earnings from his employment at Dolly Shoe (1955), Tujague's (1955-56), J.R. Michaels (1956) the Pfisterer Dental Lab (1957-58), and the Dept. of the Navy (Marines) in the Determination of Award given to Marina Oswald in 1964.
When the FBI collects, destroys, and alters school records (Stripling & Beauregard), employment records (Dolly, JR Michaels, Tujague's, Pfisterer), Oswald's Texas drivers license and DPS file, employment records for Marguerite Oswald, fabricates W-2 forms, and provides only photographs of evidence to the WC, then the Commission's ability to correctly piece together Oswald's background is limited. With the disappearance of so much evidence at the hands of the FBI, it is reasonable to assume they may have had something to do with the "disappearance" of Oswald's SSA records in 1963, around the same time the W-2 forms were created, photographed, and given to the Warren Commission.
NOTE: A few thoughts about J. Edgar Hoover. Within 24 hours of the assassination Hoover sent FBI agents to various cities throughout the USA to collect documents relating to HARVEY and LEE. His agents were instructed where to go and precisely which documents to seize. Therefore, we can conclude that Hoover knew about HARVEY and LEE's background long before November 22. And he knew, or was told on November 22, the American public could never be told about the two Oswalds or the CIA's "Oswald project". Within the next 3 days Oswald's Minox spy camera became a "light meter," Oswald's drivers license disappeared from the Texas Dept of Public Safety, ficticious W-2 forms were created, school records were seized and soon disappeared, hundreds of items of evidence were created, altered, or manipulated. Within 72 hours the FBI had "officially" solved the case and issued a written report. The unanswered questions are: (1) when did Hoover first learn about HARVEY and LEE, (2) how did Hoover acquire detailed biographical information prior to 11/22/63, (3) On November 22, 1963 who directed Hoover to seize and destroy all records relating to a 2nd Oswald.
WC attorney John Hart Ely was responsible for gathering information on the background of Marguerite Oswald and Lee Harvey Oswald. His task was to construct a chronology, based on data available to the Commission, of the backgrounds--life, school, residences, etc.--of Mrs. Oswald, her several marriages, her husbands, and her three children, especially Lee Harvey Oswald. Ely realized that some of the information provided by the FBI conflicted with information gathered by the Commission (such as the FBI's photograph of a 1956 W-2 form from Pfisterers; and an FBI report of Palmer E. McBride who said that LHO worked at Pfisterers in 1957-58). On April 10, 1964 WC attorney Albert Jenner wrote a memo to WC General Counsel J. Lee Rankin and stated, "Our depositions and examination of records and other data disclose that there are details in Mr. Ely's memoranda, which will require material alteration and, in some instances, omission." Alteration, omission, and fabricating records, testimony, and documents was necessary in order to merge the identities of LEE and HARVEY into the legend of one "Lee Harvey Oswald" as presented by the WC.
 
Fifteen years later, on May 15, 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations chief counsel Robert Blakey wrote to the Social Security Administration requesting "access to all files and documents concerning or referring to Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina Oswald." On July 28, Social Security Administration associate commissioner Robert P. Bynum formally responded. In a three-page cover letter to Ms. Jackie Hess, an HSCA employee, Bynum cited 36 different documents that were being forwarded from the Social Security Administration to the HSCA. This is a remarkable document, and three excerpts from it are reproduced below.
July 28, 1978; Social Security Administration to the Select Committee on Assassinations:
Bynum1.jpg
Following this introduction are 36 numbered items extending through three pages. The following excerpt is from page 2:
Bynum2.jpg
After the 36th numbered paragraph, Mr. Bynum closes his letter with these words:
Bynum3.jpg
In 1978 the SSA once again failed to provide information relating to Oswald's pre-1962 employment (House Select Committee). In an attempt to avoid answering questions or providing Social Security records about Oswald's pre-1962 income someone at the SSA took the time to copy and forward to the HSCA copies of Oswald's employment as reported by the Warren Commission (line 23). It is obvious that in 1978 someone at the SSA knew there was problem with LHO's pre-1962 income. That someone knew there was a big problem and was trying hard to avoid the issue 15 years after the assassination.
On November 22, 1996, Marina Oswald Porter and the Assassination Record Review Board's John Tunnheim appeared on the Oprah Winfrey television program. On that broadcast, Tunnheim asked Marina point blank to release Oswalds tax forms and said, "We're asking her to cooperate as well with help getting access to Lee Harvey Oswald's tax files...." Marina refused, adding: "It's not important." But the missing information was and is very important. We have to wonder WHY Marina refused to allow access to Oswald's tax information.
SSA records relating to Oswald's pre-1962 earnings either disappeared or were withheld shortly after his death in 1963. Their disappearance was actively managed and continued through 1978 and beyond, and someone knew the reason. Someone knew and someone still knows. Today, if the SSA "magically" produced Oswald's pre-1962 records, there is little doubt those records would be "sanitized." If Oswald's earnings from employment at Dolly Shoe, Tujague's, JR Michaels, and the Pfisterer Dental Lab had been properly maintained and reported by the SSA fifty years ago, then those records would show that two people were using the name and social security number of Lee Harvey Oswald.
---------------------------------------------
Mr. Parnell or Mr. B will no doubt claim that someone somewhere else has debunked the above, but I remind readers of my claim that no one has ever debunked right here, on the JFK Assassination Debate forum, ANY of the bulleted points I made near the top of this post, including the Social Security information just presented.  Put your arguments here, boys!  Don't be afraid!
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:
  • 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.

Remembering my assertion that the H&L theory is based entirely on mistaken witnesses and incorrect or misinterpreted documents, let's do a quick check of Jim's list and see if I am right.

For the first entry above, we already know that Jim's claims only work if you interpret the evidence one way and one way only. Another point is that Marguerite never said that LHO attended Stripling. Only Robert (who had left for the Marines just before that) made that claim. And the "evidence" for 2220 Thomas Place? Witness statements only-no documentation. Anyone can do a search here or go to Greg Parker's site and read an alternate explanation for these discrepancies. No 2 Oswalds required.

40 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

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.

This is based on a fight that LHO was involved in, some witness statements and what true believers of the H&L theory think they see in photographs. Again, Greg Parker has an alternate explanation at his site. No 2 Oswalds required.

42 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

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.”

I have not looked specifically into this, but it is not too hard to imagine that a government agency screwed something up. No 2 Oswalds required.

51 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

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.

Greg Parker has developed a chronology for that period of time that explains the discrepancies. He used some original research to help do this and published it in one of his books. No 2 Oswalds required.

53 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:
  • 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.

Three more instances that rely on a witness statement. When you understand that witnesses can and do make mistakes, it is explainable. No 2 Oswalds required for any of this.

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

Anyone can do a search here or go to Greg Parker's site and read an alternate explanation for these discrepancies. No 2 Oswalds required....

Again, Greg Parker has an alternate explanation at his site. No 2 Oswalds required....

Greg Parker has developed a chronology for that period of time that explains the discrepancies. He used some original research to help do this and published it in one of his books. No 2 Oswalds required.

As I wrote in my previous post....

Quote

Mr. Parnell or Mr. B will no doubt claim that someone somewhere else has debunked the above, but I remind readers of my claim that no one has ever debunked right here, on the JFK Assassination Debate forum, ANY of the bulleted points I made near the top of this post, including the Social Security information just presented.  Put your arguments here, boys!  Don't be afraid!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Parnell or Mr. B will no doubt claim that someone somewhere else has debunked the above, but I remind readers of my claim that no one has ever debunked right here, on the JFK Assassination Debate forum, ANY of the bulleted points I made near the top of this post, including the Social Security information just presented.  Put your arguments here, boys!  Don't be afraid!

Wrong again Jim. Most if not all of the arguments you list have been debunked right here at EF. We are not going to do your work for you-searches can be made to find them. And we are not going to put them in this thread because you demand it. One thing you pretend to not understand is that people create websites so they don't have to endlessly retype the same arguments over and over. You yourself have a website for just that purpose as your endless "data dumps" here demonstrate. I assume the purpose of this thread has been to get exposure for the H&L theory and to that extent we are playing right into your hands. But don't pretend that these things have not been discussed before-they have ad nauseum. And please don't say like you did one time (it was either you or Sandy) that the websites we link to don't exist because you can't see them.

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...