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!)


Jim Hargrove
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jim:

Do you have any theories about the Bolton Ford incident? Why did it happen and why was someone with Oswald's name involved in it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After nearly 60 years of research on the JFK assassination, this is what things have come to: a contest of incredibility between Armstrong's imaginary doppelgangers and Baker's imaginary amateur cancer researchers. It's like watching creationists battling it out against astrologers, or magic-crystal shakers versus flat-earthers.

For those of you who are banging your heads against your keyboards, you are not alone:

Quote

H and L vs Me and Lee...the perfect symmetry...both of them are a preposterous pack of outlandish lies... ... Never underestimate the need to believe in something...anything...be it incorporeal polyglot Hungarian doppelgangers or coarse featured con artists...

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2410p50-the-hobbits-strike-back-the-revenge-of-jimbo-baggins#36735

As Alex points out, the root cause is people's irrational urge to believe. No matter how outrageous a particular claim is, there's bound to be someone who seizes upon it to satisfy a psychological need:

  • So a top-secret 5'11" Oswald doppelganger magically shrank himself down to 5'6" when he decided to start buying trucks in public. How did he manage that? I don't care! Praise Armstrong! I believe!
  • She was Lee Oswald's girlfriend in New Orleans. No, really, she's not making it up. She has all the documents to prove it, or she did have, but they got lost or the dog ate them or something. Please send her lots of money! That's good enough for me! Yes, I believe! Does she take PayPal?
  • How many Oswald doppelgangers were there altogether? There could have been as many as four! There was the 5'11" one, the 5'9" one, the 5'6" one, and the other one who was either 6'3" or 3'6" depending on whether I've put my glasses on the right way round. Praise Armstrong!
  • How many of those doppelgangers went to the Soviet Union? Two! Oh yes! I believe!
  • And how many of them had a 13-inch head? All of them! I believe!

I don't know about the Baker cult, but the 'Harvey and Lee' cult's few remaining devotees have acknowledged that their long-term double-doppelganger scheme could never have happened, yet still they believe. Praise Armstrong!

I noticed some remarks on another Ed Forum thread recently, bemoaning the media's disgraceful treatment of the JFK assassination. What we see here is part of the reason for that treatment. A serious historical topic has been infested by hucksters, charlatans, and deluded tin-foil-hatters.

The media tries to persuade the public that anyone who doubts the official explanation for the JFK assassination is a crackpot 'conspiracy theorist'. Where did they get that idea from, I wonder?

Edited by Jeremy Bojczuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, John Kowalski said:

Jim:

Do you have any theories about the Bolton Ford incident? Why did it happen and why was someone with Oswald's name involved in it?

John,

I think the American-born Oswald was active in U.S. political operations much of the time the Russian-speaking Oswald was in the Soviet Union.  No one knew back then that all hell would break loose on 11/22/63 and that “Lee Harvey Oswald” would ostensibly be put under a microscope.  During Oswald’s Russian adventure, his handlers surely only felt it necessary to fool a few Commie bureaucrats.

Some of the better known examples during this time (when one Oswald was in the USSR) include the American born Oswald’s work with Cuban expats in Florida and other places as described by Marita Lorenz and others, his experiences with Steve Landesberg, at least one trip to Cuba (as admitted by Hoover before it was denied) and, of course, the Bolton Ford incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

She was Lee Oswald's girlfriend in New Orleans. No, really, she's not making it up. She has all the documents to prove it, or she did have, but they got lost or the dog ate them or something.

Well, at least Mr. B and I agree on something.  

Still waiting for Mr. B to explain how one “Lee Harvey Oswald” attended school in New York City at the very same time the other was getting educated in New Orleans.  As always, Mr. B. will post a link or 12 claiming it is all debunked somewhere else but, if it really was, surely he’d explain it here, on the JFK Debate Forum.  Obviously he doesn’t want to do so.  Why?  Because it HAS NOT been explained somewhere else.

NYC%20school%20record.jpg

The above New York City Board of Education record shows that LEE Harvey Oswald attended Public School 44  starting 3/23/53 and extending through mid-January 1954.


Beauregard%20Record.jpg

The 1953 Beauregard JHS (New Orleans) record above shows Lee Oswald attended 89 days of school during the fall semester of 1953, at the same time LEE Oswald attended PS 44 in New York City.

Mr. B wants everyone to believe this has been explained somewhere else, but he doesn’t want to explain it here.  Why?  Because it HAS NOT been explained elsewhere!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2021 at 3:45 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

How many Oswald doppelgangers were there altogether? There could have been as many as four! There was the 5'11" one, the 5'9" one, the 5'6" one, and the other one who was either 6'3" or 3'6" depending on whether I've put my glasses on the right way round. Praise Armstrong!

Jim,

Do you what JB is talking about?  A 6 foot 3 Oswald?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2021 at 12:45 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. B wants everyone to believe this has been explained somewhere else, but he doesn’t want to explain it here.  Why?  Because it HAS NOT been explained elsewhere!

Not only has it been explained countless times on this very forum, but it has also been authoritatively debunked by actual researchers on other forums such as Greg Parker's. Same with the Bolton Ford incident. There are perfectly logical and reasonable explanations for both that do not require the ridiculous doppelganger theories you peddle here. Shouldn't there be a rule against your incessant spamming of this forum with the same posts over and over again? Jeremy is absolutely right that what was once a serious historical topic has been infested by hucksters, charlatans and deluded tin-foil-hatters.

Jonathan please note Admin take a dim view using this forum to belittle and insult fellow members. If I have a third complaint about you you will be given a holiday from posting. By all means robustly challenge fellow members views but superior looking down on members and their views is not acceptable.

James Gordon

Edited by James R Gordon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2021 at 10:54 AM, John Butler said:

Jim,

Do you what JB is talking about?  A 6 foot 3 Oswald?  

I’d describe it as attempted derisive hyperbole.  I’m unaware of any reference to a 6’ 3” LHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2021 at 11:56 AM, Jonathan Cohen said:

Not only has it been explained countless times on this very forum, but it has also been authoritatively debunked by actual researchers on other forums such as Greg Parker's.

Great!  Then it should be simple for you to debunk it here, but since it HAS NOT been debunked by Greg Parker or anyone else, please go right ahead and debunk it yourself.

Again, junior high schools records published in the Warren volumes show that LHO attended the entire fall 1953 semester at Public School 44 in New York City and, simultaneously, the entire 1953 fall semester at Beauregard JHS in New Orleans. 

The problem is quite simple. The explanation should be equally simple.  The simplest explanation is that the records refer to two different boys, which, in fact, they do.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Not only has it been explained countless times on this very forum, but it has also been authoritatively debunked by actual researchers on other forums such as Greg Parker's.

Jim:

You have won the debate. This response clearly shows that Parker's posse can't respond with facts and logical argument.  If they had these they would have posted them now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Kowalski said:

Jim:

You have won the debate. This response clearly shows that Parker's posse can't respond with facts and logical argument.  If they had these they would have posted them now.

Numerous posters, here and elsewhere, have responded to the "school records controversy" with facts and logical arguments for years. The "Harvey and Lee" contingent simply refuses to acknowledge that their own interpretation of the records might actually have a logical explanation not predicated on two different Oswalds and two (or was it three?) different Marguerites.

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records?highlight=school+records

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1666-josephs-mangles-the-records-yet-again?highlight=school+records

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2021 at 12:56 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

Not only has it been explained countless times on this very forum, but it has also been authoritatively debunked by actual researchers on other forums such as Greg Parker's. Same with the Bolton Ford incident. There are perfectly logical and reasonable explanations for both that do not require the ridiculous doppelganger theories you peddle here. Shouldn't there be a rule against your incessant spamming of this forum with the same posts over and over again? Jeremy is absolutely right that what was once a serious historical topic has been infested by hucksters, charlatans and deluded tin-foil-hatters.

Jonathan please note Admin take a dim view using this forum to belittle and insult fellow members. If I have a third complaint about you you will be given a holiday from posting. By all means robustly challenge fellow members views but superior looking down on members and their views is not acceptable.

James Gordon

 

On 6/15/2021 at 3:45 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

After nearly 60 years of research on the JFK assassination, this is what things have come to: a contest of incredibility between Armstrong's imaginary doppelgangers and Baker's imaginary amateur cancer researchers. It's like watching creationists battling it out against astrologers, or magic-crystal shakers versus flat-earthers.

I would like to give a big THANK YOU to James Gordon for giving a warning to Jonathan Cohen.  I think Jeremy Bojczuk should not be neglected and be included in this warning.  The above quote is of a similar vein as many other postings of his which include this type of writing that is insulting to other fellow members.

That is why I do not respond to Jeremy or Jonathan posts when they concern me.  It is a waste of time when you receive this type of argument.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I’d describe it as attempted derisive hyperbole.  I’m unaware of any reference to a 6’ 3” LHO.

Yes.  Although hyperbole may not be the best word to describe the wordage.  When considered in context, perhaps ad hominem may be better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The simplest explanation is that the records refer to two different boys, which, in fact, they do.

No, the simplest explanation is not to assume there were two boys. Any investigator or scientist would tell you that is illogical. It depends on how you read the records. There is more than one way to do that and as Jonathan has pointed out, Greg Parker has provided an alternate explanation. Additionally, there are other explanations such as the records contain errors which the Armstrong supporters use to their advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, John Butler said:

It is a waste of time when you receive this type of argument.  

I agree, it is a waste of time to respond to their derisive statements. However, I disagree with your choice of words i.e. "argument".  An argument is made when someone expresses a conclusion based on an analysis of facts. Their snide remarks do not do that. What they do show is emotion. They respond with emotion because they can't argue with facts and sound logic. One thing I have learned over the years is that you can't argue with emotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...