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

8 hours 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?

Great question, Denny.

As I’ve often said, either LHO was more impersonated than anyone else in history, or there is a simpler   explanation.  What could it be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 6/20/2021 at 9:19 AM, 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?

They just can't do it, John!  For example, they simply WILL NOT discuss the 1952 evidence for two Oswalds.  Nor will they discuss the 1953 evidence.  They are simply afraid to engage with me.  Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, John Butler said:

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.

 

Interesting stuff, John.

Please see my email note!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2021 at 9:06 AM, 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.

Thanks, John.  It never ceases to amaze me how afraid the naysayers are to engage!

They appear to be simply afraid to debate.  WHY???

John A. has sent me a number of updates for the H&L website.  I'll be back here ASAP!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denny Zartman writes:

Quote

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.

Denny,

If you're referring to my question, so far unanswered by the 'Harvey and Lee' believers, you seem to have misunderstood what I was getting at.

We know from innumerable threads on this forum and elsewhere that the 'Harvey and Lee' scheme didn't happen. Every element of the theory that has been examined in detail has been shown to be either poorly supported by the evidence or plainly contradicted by the evidence. If you don't believe me, check out the many links that I and others have provided. A couple of good places to start would be the Stripling witnesses thread and the Texas Theater thread. If you or anyone else finds something the critics have missed, please mention it on the appropriate thread.

The notion that Oswald and his mother were impersonated for over a decade is dead and buried, and has been for some time.

When I wrote this:

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?

I was making the point that the hypothetical long-term double-doppelganger scheme simply could never have happened. We know that it didn't happen; I was illustrating why it didn't happen.

If that isn't clear enough, let me explain it in another way. Put yourself in the shoes of the hypothetical Bad Guys who wanted to do what the 'Harvey and Lee' theory claims some Bad Guys wanted to do:

  • It is the early 1950s. You are thinking of sending a false defector into the Soviet Union at some point several years in the future.
  • You decide that this defector needs to be able to understand the Russian that will be spoken around him.
  • You decide that he also needs to have the background of a genuine American, ideally of a genuine American serviceman.
  • You are aware that in the early 1950s there are at least 2.5 million Americans in the military at any one time.
  • You are aware that your defector does not need to be an expert speaker of Russian. He only needs to be able to understand what is being said around him, and he should not have an authentic Russian accent.
  • You are aware that you have several years in which to prepare your false defector.

What do you do? It's blindingly obvious what you would do. You would examine those 2.5 million American servicemen, and find one who had a talent for languages. You would encourage him to learn Russian to a reasonable level, and maybe provide some tuition if necessary.

That's the simplest, cheapest, and most efficient way to achieve your goal. Why would any other option even occur to you?

The 'Harvey and Lee' theory's ridiculously complicated long-term double-doppelganger scheme failed at the first hurdle. It not only didn't happen, but it could never have happened.

Postscript:

It shouldn't need to be said, but in case of further misunderstanding I'll say it anyway. Questioning the preposterous 'Harvey and Lee' theory does not imply support for the equally preposterous lone-nut theory. As Tracy Parnell has pointed out, the majority of 'Harvey and Lee' critics are also lone-gunman critics. Nor does it imply disbelief in the idea that Oswald's defection was insincere. You can explain the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald's defection as some kind of intelligence operation without having to invent doppelganger Oswalds and doppelganger Marguerites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Denny,

If you're referring to my question, so far unanswered by the 'Harvey and Lee' believers, you seem to have misunderstood what I was getting at.

Who was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald in 1960 or earlier, and why?

If you have so many answers and know so much, answer that question, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

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.

Then who was impersonating Oswald in 1960 and why?

If Harvey and Lee opponents truly do have alternative explanations as you seem to imply, then please provide one. I'm fairly confident in saying no person on the planet believes that Oswald was being set up for the assassination of President Kennedy in April 1960 or earlier, because Kennedy wasn't elected president until November 1960.

If all the opponents of the Harvey and Lee theory continually parrot about how unimaginably difficult it would be to have such a complicated long-term scheme as posited by the Harvey and Lee theory, then they should also realize and acknowledge that, logistically speaking, offing a Senator would have been easier than offing a President.

If we are truly not debating the basic fact that at some undetermined time before his death Oswald was being impersonated, then we are just disagreeing about the length of that time. Was it only 3 or 4 years, or did it date back a decade or more? If we are only debating the length of time, then in my opinion it's illogical for the Harvey and Lee opponents to be absolutely dismissive of any possibility that it might have been more than just 3 or 4 years. Clearly, that possibility, no matter how remote, exists. And if anyone says that possibility doesn't exist at all, they must then provide some sort of answer (hopefully with at least one fact to support it) to the question "Who was impersonating Oswald in 1960 and why?" because it certainly was not part of a plan to implicate Oswald in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Great question, Denny.

As I’ve often said, either LHO was more impersonated than anyone else in history, or there is a simpler   explanation.  What could it be?

The problem with having so much evidence is that if you present 10 pieces and your opponents are able to poke holes in 1 or 2 of them, they think they've knocked down all 10.

I've not been a proponent of the Harvey and Lee theory. I understand completely why someone would find it hard to believe. I instinctually find it difficult to believe myself; that's why I've never been a proponent. It is asking a lot of anyone to believe in the possibility that Oswald had a double shadowing him since childhood. I don't take giving an opinion on that lightly.

But in reading this thread, learning more about the case outside this forum, and doing a considerable amount of thinking about it in the past few months, I have to call it as I currently see it.

In my opinion, despite my own personal inclination to reject it, I now believe there's more evidence pointing toward the possibility of Harvey and Lee being true than away. That doesn't make me a True Believer© saying that all the evidence and arguments presented are 100% flawless. I can't even claim to understand it all. But if I find what I believe are flaws or errors in some pieces of evidence or arguments, I don't then go throw the baby out with the bathwater and call the whole thing a ridiculous farce. Even if the possibility of it being true is minimal or remote, I believe it would still be a worthy area of study because that possibility exists at all. I certainly don't believe it's worthy of being repeatedly ridiculed so voraciously.

If some people want to disagree with it, debate it, or dismiss it entirely, that's their right. But IMHO the constant repetitive ridicule is tiring and unhelpful in reaching what I hope is our common goal: furthering our understanding of the JFK assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jonathan Cohen said:

Just so we are clear, what specific 1960 impersonation are you referring to?

Quote

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
WASHINGTON 25, D. C.
File No. 105-82555

Date: June 3, 1960
To: Office of Security
Department of State
From: John Edgar Hoover, Director
Subject: LEE HARVEY OSWALD
INTERNAL SECURITY - R

Reference is made to Foreign Service Dispatch Number 234 dated November 2, 1959, concerning subject’s renunciation of his American citizenship at the United States Embassy, Moscow, Russia, on October 31, 1959.

It is noted that among other items, subject surrendered his United States Passport Number 1733242 to an American Embassy official. His last known residence as indicated in your dispatch was The Letropole Hotel, Moscow, where he was residing in a nontourist status.

Your attention is directed to the report of Special Agent John W. Fain, Dallas, Texas, dated May 12, 1960, entitled “Funds Transmitted to Residents of Russia; Internal Security R,” a copy of which was furnished to the Department of State on May 24, 1960.

In that report you will note that subject’s mother, Mrs. Marguerite C. Oswald, Fort Worth, Texas, advised that she recently received a letter addressed to her son from the Albert Schweitzer College in Switzerland indicating that Lee Oswald was expected at the college on April 20, 1960. She stated subject had taken his birth certificate with him when he left home. She was apprehensive about his safety because three letters she had written him since January 22, 1960, have been returned to her undelivered.

Since there is a possibility that an impostor is using Oswald’s birth certificate, any current information the Department of State may have concerning subject will be appreciated.

1 - Director of Naval Intelligence

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11510#relPageId=836

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, John Kowalski said:

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.

I stand by my assertion that scientists and professional investigators would not agree with the methodology of the H&L supporters. I am not going to take it to them just to satisfy you since they (nor anyone else) should not have to spend a minute on nonsense. As for "reviewing and critiquing" the H&L theory, that is what I have done since the nineties. Thankfully, I don't spend much time doing that anymore since a group of responsible CTs who are concerned that the theory is hurting legitimate inquiry into the assassination has taken on that job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

The answer, quite simply, is that nobody really knows what this memo was all about, but it appears to be a rather benign mix of paranoia on the part of Marguerite Oswald and imprecise language on the part of Hoover. This article offers a clear-eyed analysis and provides valuable background information. Tracy Parnell has also covered this subject extensively on his own site. Again, the larger point is that EVEN IF someone was (or was attempting to) impersonate Oswald as far back as 1960, there is ZERO evidence it was connected to some larger, decades-long conspiracy to pass off two distinct people (and their mothers) as one.

Edited by Jonathan Cohen
expanded first sentence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, John Butler said:

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.     

John:

Good point. Attendance means money and these records would be kept carefully so as to ensure they were paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours 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?

The problem with this alternative explanation is that it is not based on fact instead it is based on the assumption that the poster makes that he knows how they could have done it in an easier way. Based on this assumption the poster concludes that the H&L program can't be true. Basing a conclusion on an assumption does not make sense, conclusions can only be based on facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

John A. has sent me a number of updates for the H&L website.  I'll be back here ASAP!

Will be looking forward to reading the updates.

Do you know if he has found any connection between Edwin Ekdahl and ONI?

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...