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

3 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

in my opinion it doesn't seem to be completely out of the realm of possibility that there could have possibly been a relatively sophisticated attempt at creating a better lookalike spy starting in the early 1940's.

Lot of qualifiers for a single sentence.  Sorry, Denny.. couldn't resist.

Still would like to see anybody produce a single item indicating Ekdahl was intel, US or otherwise.  Not more "woo-woo" but actual evidence for the assertion.  If it's not too great a bother or nuisance.

No qualifiers required. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks for this Denny.  I had never heard of this film or this experiment before.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Identical_Strangers

Hi JD:

Unless the assertion is now that Harvey and Lee were identical twins separated at birth, Three Identical Strangers is irrelevant.

If the assertion is that Harvey and Lee were identical twins separated at birth, some proof would be welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Butler writes:

Quote

The use of the double man or double spy is ancient and not something of the present.  It is a useful spy technique.  Twins are best or triplets.  Or, people that resemble each other closely, like the Oswalds.  The reasoning behind having such a tool in your spy bag of tricks is obvious.  One twin does something say in New York.  Gets blamed for it.  But, has an alibi in Los Vegas established by the other half.  Twin or look alike in New York goes free.

That doesn't answer my question. I wasn't asking whether one twin could do something in New York while the other twin would provide him with an alibi in 'Los' Vegas.

I was asking about the reasoning that the hypothetical masterminds must have used when they decided to set up their hypothetical long-term double-doppelganger scheme.

The 'Harvey and Lee' folk allege that these hypothetical masterminds needed to create a false defector who understood Russian and had a plausible American background. The hypothetical masterminds had two ways to do this: an obvious, straightforward way and an obscure, complex way. Why did they decide to go for the obscure, complex solution?

What would have been the thinking behind their decision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denny Zartman writes:

Quote

it seems to me that not believing in it because it's unnecessarily complex when there was a much easier alternative is akin to not believing in animation because it's far easier and more cost-effective to point a camera at an actor for an hour and come away with an hour of footage than it is to pay a dozen or more people to work for weeks sitting at drawing boards drawing and coloring every frame.

It's all to do with the intended goal. If your goal is to produce a cartoon-like sequence of actions, the rational choice is to use animators. If your goal is to produce a realistic-looking sequence, the rational choice is to use actors.

In the early 1950s, according to the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, a bunch of hypothetical Bad Guys set themselves a goal: to produce a false defector several years later who understood Russian and had a plausible American background.

There would have been an obvious and rational way to achieve that goal: recruit one of the millions of American servicemen who had a genuine American background, and get him to learn Russian to the required level. There would have been no shortage of suitable candidates, and plenty of time for the chosen candidate to get up to speed in Russian.

But for some reason, if the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is correct, the Bad Guys decided not to take advantage of this straightforward and obvious solution. Instead, we are told, they decided to go for a far more convoluted solution, one so obscure that it would surely never even have occurred to them, involving two pairs of doppelgangers and improbable resemblances between two pairs of unrelated people.

If the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is correct, those Bad Guys must have had a good reason for deciding to implement such a convoluted and not at all obvious solution, rather than the very straightforward and very obvious solution I've described.

What, according to the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, was the Bad Guys' reason for making such an irrational-looking decision? This question does not seem to have been addressed, or even considered, by any 'Harvey and Lee' believer during the two decades or more that their theory has been promoted. In the absence of a credible answer, the theory is internally incoherent.

If the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is not internally incoherent, the Bad Guys must have had a good reason for making their decision. What was that reason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

H&L, quote:

Quote

Dulles  appointment  to the  Warren  Commission,  and  his 
subsequent actions as a Commission member, strongly suggest that his appointment was 
for  the  purpose  of protecting CIA interests and  secrets.  Dulles  was so successful that 
there  is no reference  to the  CIA or  Central Intelligence  Agency  in  the  index  to  the 
Warren Commission's 26  volumes. 

Problem here: There is no index to the Warren Commission 26 Volumes made by the Commission. Only the Warren Commission Report has an index. And there the CIA is mentioned several times:

Index Warren Commission Report:

Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245,
258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275, 279^
280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365,
371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459, 461, 463-
464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777.

 

Edited by Karl Kinaski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good grief, KK!  You’ve been trying to mock H&L for years.  Is this the best you’ve got?

No doubt Mr. Bojczuk will talk endlessly about the mastoidectomy (he’s made more than 200 posts about it), but none of you will talk about the EVIDENCE for Harvey and Lee!

Look at my original post in this thread.  By all means, tell me how Greg Parker, Tracy Parnell, Jeremy Bojczuk, you and others have debunked my posts!  

But all you will do is CLAIM to have debunked this info.  And post dozens of links.  You simply WILL NOT argue the evidence here, on the JFK ASSASSINATION DEBATE website.

Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Good grief, KK!  You’ve been trying to mock H&L for years.  Is this the best you’ve got?

No doubt Mr. Bojczuk will talk endlessly about the mastoidectomy (he’s made more than 200 posts about it), but none of you will talk about the EVIDENCE for Harvey and Lee!

Look at my original post in this thread.  By all means, tell me how Greg Parker, Tracy Parnell, Jeremy Bojczuk, you and others have debunked my posts!  

But all you will do is CLAIM to have debunked this info.  And post dozens of links.  You simply WILL NOT argue the evidence here, on the JFK ASSASSINATION DEBATE website.

Why?

Hi Jim, can you please name the persons below;

harvey-row-3.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Unless the assertion is now that Harvey and Lee were identical twins separated at birth, Three Identical Strangers is irrelevant.

If the assertion is that Harvey and Lee were identical twins separated at birth, some proof would be welcome.

Good grief...

Laura Kittrell met both LHO's in 1963.  

Mrs. Kittrell said, "the man I remember as (Harvey) Oswald, and the man I remember as the Teamster (Lee Oswald) were much alike in size, shape and outline, generally, there was a marked difference between them in bearing and manner. The man I remember as Oswald was a trim, energetic, compact, well-knit person, who sat on the edge of a chair (Harvey). The man I remember as the Teamster, was sprawled over his chair and was rather messy looking (Lee)".

Ms. Kittrell was describing two young men who claimed to be named "Lee Harvey Oswald."  

LAURA KITTRELL MEETS THE TWO OSWALDS

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

Hi Jim, can you please name the persons below;

Hi Tony,

It is far too easy to misrepresent photos, and I'm not good with faces, but my bet is that the young man you have depicted above is  American born LEE Harvey Oswald, not Russian-speaking Lee HARVEY Oswald.  My advice, though, is don't rely on pix.  It is far too easy to misrepresent them.  I'd like to hear from John Butler on this....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:
23 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Unless the assertion is now that Harvey and Lee were identical twins separated at birth, Three Identical Strangers is irrelevant.

If the assertion is that Harvey and Lee were identical twins separated at birth, some proof would be welcome.

Good grief...

Laura Kittrell met both LHO's in 1963.  

Mrs. Kittrell said, "the man I remember as (Harvey) Oswald, and the man I remember as the Teamster (Lee Oswald) were much alike in size, shape and outline, generally, there was a marked difference between them in bearing and manner. The man I remember as Oswald was a trim, energetic, compact, well-knit person, who sat on the edge of a chair (Harvey). The man I remember as the Teamster, was sprawled over his chair and was rather messy looking (Lee)".

Ms. Kittrell was describing two young men who claimed to be named "Lee Harvey Oswald."  

LAURA KITTRELL MEETS THE TWO OSWALDS

Good grief, Charlie Brown.

I've been aware of and promulgating the ADULT imposture of Oswald since long before John Armstrong typed his first word.  Because of Warren Commission evidence, and then because of the other authors who came before Armstrong, and provided PROOF for their contentions of ADULT imposture.

Now you'd like to backdate Kittrel's experience with ADULT "Oswalds" to include everything since kindergarten.

Perhaps you could focus on the more controversial parts of H&L.  You beg for the opportunity to debate it, but either duck questions (entirely your right) or post non-responses such as the one above.

I've asked numerous times for someone to bother themselves providing a SINGLE shred of proof that Ekdahl was in any way Intel, US or otherwise.  After all, you're the one who made the assertion.  Silence, from the guy who begs to debate relevant H&L issues.

And to top it all off, you have the cheek to suggest that the number of Jeremy's prolific posts somehow counts against him.

Dude, how many million times have you posted on the same tired old nonsense over the past 20+ years?  Should that somehow count against you too?  What's sauce for the goose....

But you're the guy begging to debate H&L evidence.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Hi Tony,

It is far too easy to misrepresent photos, and I'm not good with faces, but my bet is that the young man you have depicted above is  American born LEE Harvey Oswald, not Russian-speaking Lee HARVEY Oswald.  My advice, though, is don't rely on pix.  It is far too easy to misrepresent them.  I'd like to hear from John Butler on this....

 

Thats good enough for me. I agree, it's Lee Harvey Oswald depicted in both photos, both wearing the same shirt, classroom clown photo taken the same day by Voebel when photographs were taken for the 1955 Yearbook

Edited by Tony Krome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

I've been aware of and promulgating the ADULT imposture of Oswald since long before John Armstrong typed his first word. 

Right.  We both agree there was an imposture of American-born Lee Harvey Oswald long before JFK was killed, we simply don't agree on how long the imposture existed.

Please tell me this imposture had nothing to do with American Intel!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:
1 hour ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

I've been aware of and promulgating the ADULT imposture of Oswald since long before John Armstrong typed his first word. 

Right.  We both agree there was an imposture of American-born Lee Harvey Oswald long before JFK was killed, we simply don't agree on how long the imposture existed.

You see, this is precisely how deliberate misrepresentation works:

I wrote: I've been aware of and promulgating the ADULT imposture of Oswald since long before John Armstrong typed his first word. (emphasis added.)

Which somehow became “We both agree there was an imposture of American-born Lee Harvey Oswald long before JFK was killed...” (emphasis added.)

Which of these is not like the other?

And why?

41 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Please tell me this imposture had nothing to do with American Intel!!!

OK.

What?  When he was 12?

Yeah, that had NOTHING to do with Intel.  

That’s the result of an over-active imagination that took every typo, every anomaly, every puzzling thing reflected in the record, and decided it was all part of the Unified Field Theory of the JFK assassination, starting in grade school.  Square pegs, round holes, and vice versa.   

If it were persuasive, why are we still here 20+ years later?  Because the H&L charm offensive has been so successful?

Please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Good grief, KK!  You’ve been trying to mock H&L for years.  Is this the best you’ve got?

 

Well there is some Info at the end of WCH Vol 15. But that is no true index it is crap.  
It only provides a list of names within the volumes.
There are no city names, such as New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, or Dallas.
There is no Moscow. No Minsk. There are no agency names, such as FBI, CIA, or ONI.

And why do you think Sylvia Meagher sat down and compiled the only usable and true Masterindex of all of the WC Volumes??? 

Armstrongs claim in H&L, quote:  

Quote

 Dulles  was so successful that 
there  is no reference  to the  CIA or  Central Intelligence  Agency  in  the  index  to  the 
Warren Commission's 26  volumes. 

proves, that he don't know what he is talking about ... 

Another one:

In Armstrongs H&L Oswalds address when he worked for Leslie Welding at Montgomery Ward in Forth Worth, is wrong. It is not, as Armstrong claims 2703 Mercedes Street, it is 2703 Mercedes Avenue. There is no Mercedes Street in Forth Worth.  This misinfo is in the Warren Commission Volumes too ... which makes me wonder what other misinfo Armstrong took uncritically out of the WC Volumes whenever it fit his crazy story. 

 

KK

 

Edited by Karl Kinaski
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...