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

22 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Numerous posters, here and elsewhere, have responded to the "school records controversy" with facts and logical arguments for years.

Jim has made a simple request, to discuss Harvey and Lee on this forum and not elsewhere.

If you are so confident in your your beliefs, why don't you make an argument here on this forum?  Are you able to do so? Can you demonstrate that you can make a rational argument based on facts on this forum or will you respond with your usual emotional responses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

21 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

No, the simplest explanation is not to assume there were two boys. Any investigator or scientist would tell you that is illogical.

Can you provide us with the names of the these scientists and investigators and their proof regarding the two boys?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, John Kowalski said:

Can you provide us with the names of the these scientists and investigators and their proof regarding the two boys?

No, I have polled no specific individuals. But I believe I am on solid ground by saying that these people would tell you that the theory that there were two boys is remarkable. As such, it would only be considered after other simpler explanations had been ruled out. But Jim and other believers use discrepencies in the record to make a case for 2 Oswalds while ignoring other explanations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Kowalski said:

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.

John,

Absolutely.  I agree.  I stand corrected on the choice of the word argument.  Good point.  Perhaps statements might be a better way to say that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, John Kowalski said:

Jim has made a simple request, to discuss Harvey and Lee on this forum and not elsewhere.

If you are so confident in your your beliefs, why don't you make an argument here on this forum?  Are you able to do so? Can you demonstrate that you can make a rational argument based on facts on this forum or will you respond with your usual emotional responses?

Because the arguments have already been made, repeatedly. Such as here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/

As pointed out by Tracy and numerous others, Jim and fellow "Harvey and Lee" believers utilize discrepancies in the record to make a case for two Oswalds while completely ignoring other perfectly logical explanations. And when confronted with these alternative explanations, such as provided by Mark Stevens in the above-linked thread, they simply start new threads and copy and paste the same thing over and over. For what?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tracy Parnell writes:

Quote

the simplest explanation is not to assume there were two boys.

Of course! It's an obvious point, but one the believers don't seem able to grasp. There are simple, everyday explanations for the discrepancies and anomalies that the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' case relies upon. Inventing a decade-long double-doppelganger scheme is just about the least simple explanation you could come up with.

This applies not only to modern interpreters of the evidence. Even back in the early 1950s, when the double-doppelganger scheme was allegedly started, the hypothetical masterminds of the scheme would have had a far simpler alternative available to them.

They supposedly needed someone who (a) spoke Russian reasonably well, and (b) possessed a plausible American background. Why would they have gone to the trouble and expense of raising a fake eastern European Oswald with a fake mother, and employing all the other people who would have been needed to keep the show on the road for a decade?

As I pointed out earlier on this thread:

Quote

The masterminds had a much simpler, cheaper, and more efficient way to achieve their goal: find an American with a knack for languages, get him up to speed in Russian, then send him off to Moscow. Here's the question the 'Harvey and Lee' faithful have been unable to answer: Why did the masterminds not do this?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Kowalski writes:

Quote

If you are so confident in your your beliefs, why don't you make an argument here on this forum?

The points of doctrine that you want people to discuss here have already been discussed here, over and over again.

Jonathan has just provided you with a link to a discussion of the Stripling evidence ('demolition' might be a better word than 'discussion'). A couple of pages ago, I provided you with plenty of links to discussions of other points of doctrine. You could also use the search function to find threads on this forum devoted to pretty much every aspect of the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' nonsense.

Click on those links, read the discussions, and if you find something that hasn't been dealt with, feel free to make a comment on the relevant thread.

I'll repeat that: if you have a new item of evidence or a new argument about interpreting existing evidence, do so on the proper thread. You have plenty of such threads to choose from. But there aren't any new items of evidence, are there?

Why do double-doppelganger believers insist on rehashing the same stuff over and over again? It's like being pestered by Jehovah's Witnesses. For more similarities between double-doppelganger believers and believers in other forms of superstition, see my next post.

If John Kowalski genuinely wants to discuss matters of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine, he now has an offer to do so:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2410p50-the-hobbits-strike-back-the-revenge-of-jimbo-baggins#36804

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Butler objects to my equating the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' nonsense to creationism, astrology, crystal-waving and believing that the earth is flat.

In the past, I've also used the faked-moon-landings analogy. I presume John wouldn't object to that one, given that Jack White, the eminent co-founder of double-doppelgangerism, also believed that the moon landings were faked:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/5911-jack-whites-aulis-apollo-hoax-investigation-a-rebuttal/

What's the problem? The long-term double-doppelganger nonsense belongs to precisely the same category as these other beliefs. In each case, the belief is firmly contradicted by the balance of the relevant evidence, and those who hold the beliefs are worthy of ridicule.

Other similarities come to mind:

  • Jim Hargrove's frequent copying and pasting of passages from Scripture is just like the behaviour of religious fundamentalists. By the way, as Jonathan points out, if there isn't a rule against Jim's copy-and-paste spamming of this forum, there really should be.
  • Double-doppelganger doctrine is almost never questioned by its believers.
  • Double-doppelganger doctrine is invulnerable to criticism. A point of doctrine is put forward; objections are made by rational critics; the objections are ignored by believers; and on the third day the point of doctrine rises again, whole and intact, with no acknowledgement that any objections had ever been made (see Jim's copy-and-paste spamming, above).
  • Believers cannot accept that points of doctrine have been debunked, hence the frequent pleas by believers to keep debating the same points over and over again.
  • Jim's merry-go-round of double-doppelganger debating points is somewhat like the creationist Gish Gallop. There was a magically shrinking Oswald doppelganger at the Bolton Ford dealership! [Objections are made to the Bolton Ford nonsense.] OK, but there was an Oswald doppelganger who attended Stripling! [Objections are made to the Stripling nonsense.] OK, but there were two doppelgangers arrested in the Texas Theater! [Objections are made to the Texas Theater nonsense.] OK, but one Oswald had a 13-inch head! [Objections are made to the 13-inch head nonsense.] OK, but there was a magically shrinking Oswald doppelganger at the Bolton Ford dealership! And round and round we go. Again, see Jim's copy-and-paste spamming, above.
  • Double-doppelganger believers accept that their long-term scheme could never have happened, yet still they believe.

There are some differences. Creationism has a certain amount of political clout, at least in countries such as Iran, Nigeria and the USA. Astrology is a profitable business, as to a lesser extent is crystal-waving and other New Agey stuff. Double-doppelgangerism, on the other hand, doesn't have any political clout, and I assume Messrs Armstrong and Hargrove don't make any money from it (unless that apocryphal Hollywood film deal has finally turned up).

The most important difference is that, unlike these other superstitions, double-doppelgangerism hasn't caught on at all. Even in the world of the JFK assassination, which has more than its fair share of people who are attracted to implausibly complex conspiracies, the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' nonsense is still very much a minority belief. As Bernie Laverick pointed out four years ago:

Quote

You recruited about a dozen followers in 20 years. That's fantastic. Well done! You do know that more people believe that the Queen of England is a lizard than believe in H&L? In fact, I'd go further, more people would probably rather accept that she was one of the shooters than accept this relentless trolling disguised as a risible theory, one that relies on deliberate falsification and mistruths

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?do=findComment&comment=362658

Bernie wasn't wrong, by the way. Far more people believe that the queen is a lizard than believe that Oswald and his mother were each a pair of doppelgangers:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/qanon-s-capitol-rioters-nashville-bomber-s-lizard-people-theory-ncna1253819

Ridicule is a useful tool for deflating spurious claims. Rational people frequently make fun of those who believe in long-debunked nonsense such as creationism, astrology, crystal-shaking, a flat earth, faked moon landings, and shape-shifting lizards. Why should believers in other forms of long-debunked nonsense, such as non-existent doppelgangers, be exempt?

P.S. Apologies to any creationists, astrologers, crystal-shakers, flat-earthers or fake-moon-landingers who are upset at being compared to believers in a long-term double-doppelganger scheme that even its believers accept could never have happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

 

Bernie wasn't wrong, by the way. Far more people believe that the queen is a lizard than believe that Oswald and his mother were each a pair of doppelgangers:

  

The two moms are the running gag of H&L:

Armstrongs book should have the title:

"Harvey and Marguerite plus Lee and Frances Claverie Oswald". Or is it the other way around?

"Harvey and Frances Claverie plus Lee and Marguerite Oswald"?

"Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Frances Claverie" would also be a possibility ...

... two Ossis and two Moms and Marina Oswald never knew if she was sleeping with Ossi or Lee and to whom she was talking to Marguerite or Frances Claverie ... 

 

H&L is a joke while secret labs to weaponize cancer or viruses are not a joke. 

 

Edited by Karl Kinaski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

No, I have polled no specific individuals. But I believe I am on solid ground by saying that these people would tell you that the theory that there were two boys is remarkable.

I now understand why you have a problem with H&L. You just admitted saying that certain people would not agree with his book and then you say that you had not polled them.  You made it up, you are basing your belief on imaginary opinions. If you want to critique H&L please do. John Armstrong welcomes it. But if you do, do not make up opinions, instead review the evidence presented by John Armstrong and critique it. That is how it is done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

These folks would have you believe that the Harvey and Lee story is a minority position.  When in actually, the minority view, the Warren Commission, or what I call the official story, is the minority view.  And, has been for decades.  

I don't know how many people believe the Harvey and Lee story is credible.  That's not important.  What is true is important regardless of the popular opinion.  But, it explains best the various anomalies provided in the official story and in part is based from WC findings.

One of the things these other folk keep harping about is school records and attendance.  I know a little about school records and attendance.  Attendance is one of the most reviewed and scrutinized record keeping in any school or district.  These type of records are reviewed at the school level, County Board level, and lastly at the state level.  Errors or any suspicious thought of an error are investigated thoroughly.

Why?  It is because money is involved.  I don't know about other states, but all do about the same thing. In KY the school and district is given money based on the daily attendance of a student.  All in all each student, is looked at and determined if they are a legitimate student.  Schools receive money based on the accuracy of their records on attendance.  The idea of a student's attendance (whether they were there or not or whether they are misidentified) being wrong is unbelievable.  And, that in particular an error could survive for half a year.  If such were so, it would be of the rarest occurance.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny how the opponents of Harvey and Lee just keep spamming the forum with "they could have done it easier", pretty much admitting that all they have is their inability to believe in a long-term program with any degree of complexity.

Someone was using Lee Harvey Oswald's identity in 1960 or earlier. Who was it, and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

These folks would have you believe that the Harvey and Lee story is a minority position.  When in actually, the minority view, the Warren Commission, or what I call the official story, is the minority view.  And, has been for decades.  

I don't know how many people believe the Harvey and Lee story is credible.  That's not important.  What is true is important regardless of the popular opinion.  But, it explains best the various anomalies provided in the official story and in part is based from WC findings.

It absolutely does NOT "explain best" these anomalies, which is why hardly anybody takes this theory seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

It's funny how the opponents of Harvey and Lee just keep spamming the forum with "they could have done it easier", pretty much admitting that all they have is their inability to believe in a long-term program with any degree of complexity.

Someone was using Lee Harvey Oswald's identity in 1960 or earlier. Who was it, and why?

Whoever it may have been, WHY does it have to be as part of a long-term doppelganger program? Is there truly no other possible explanation? In reality, the refusal to consider alternative explanations is all Harvey and Lee adherents have going for them, not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Someone was using Lee Harvey Oswald's identity in 1960 or earlier. Who was it, and why?

Denny,

The handlers of Lee and Harvey.  I've come to believe that neither man was there, but an imposter according to the description of Oswald and the personnel at Bolton Ford not identifying Oswald (Harvey) from his photo.  That says it was either Lee or an imposter.  Lee and Harvey description is fairly close.  They could get away with posing as each other to most people.  Some folks could see through it.

The story of Harvey and Lee goes back to their childhood.  The photos of Lee Harvey Oswald are not the same child.  And, below the photos of Lee Harvey Oswald are not the same man.

harvey-and-lee-montage-x1.jpg

Nearly all of the photos of the real Lee Harvey Oswald were merged with the double man Harvey.  One of the ways to determine whose who is match facial features.  I think I have arranged noses with the appropriate person.  Lee Oswald's nose is broad and triangular in appearance.  You can see that also in the child photo above named Lee.

On the other hand Harvey's nose was long and slender.  You can see this in the child photo and later the adult below.

I can already hear the howls of that's just light reflection or maybe it's just the camera angle.  Save you comments fellows I'm not going to listen to them.  My "lying eyes" tell me they are different.

 

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...