The Oswald Exhumation

[Sandy Larsen]

9 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Not much left to say about this topic. Jeremy and Jonathan provided the necessary links.

Providing "necessary links" is the only thing H&L critics can do. They won't debate the evidence here because they know they can't win. Instead they provide "necessary links" that are supposed to provide the debunkings.

Well I invite every skeptic to visit the links. And when you find evidence contradicting the H&L evidence, bring it on back here, show us all. I've been waiting years to see someone do that. Why is it taking so long? Because they have nothing to show other than saying the H&L evidence is all mistaken. An incompetent dentist, magic tooth-disappearing film, a scatter-brained mother who takes her son to the dentist to get his lip stitched up, and on and on. Holy zolita man, this is some crazy sheet.

 

[Ron Bulman]

On 4/26/2020 at 12:20 AM, David Andrews said:

Graphic content:

https://narratively.com/digging-up-lee-harvey-oswald/

Wait. Oswald was exhumated. why?  isn't it pretty clear Ruby shot Him, ??? 

[Jonathan Cohen]

7 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

I wonder what group "Jonathan Cohen" is working for. He pops up

now regularly with his kneejerk pro-WC comments, as

David Von Pein used to do as the designated disruptor

of intelligence discourse on this site.

Joseph: I'm honored you think my postings rise to the level of paid disinformation specialist. Now I've really hit the big time! In reality, none of my comments here have EVER been pro-Warren Commission. I am as staunch a disbeliever in their findings and conclusions as you will find on this forum. Rather, my comments are in objection to JFK conspiracy theories that are at best implausible and unsupported by any hard evidence (ie, nearly every film and photo shot in Dealey Plaza was altered) and at worst simply preposterous (two distinct Lee Harvey Oswalds running around the United States independent of one another for a decade, "fake" Marguerite Oswalds, etc.). We all owe Tracy Parnell a debt of gratitude for his exhaustive debunking of the "Harvey and Lee" concept.

[David Andrews]

32 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Wait. Oswald was exhumated. why?  isn't it pretty clear Ruby shot Him, ??? 

How long is that six-pack holding out, exactly?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

We all owe Tracy Parnell a debt of gratitude for his exhaustive debunking of the "Harvey and Lee" concept.

"Exhaustive debunking."   LOL good one! 

 

[Cory Santos]

38 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

"Exhaustive debunking."   LOL good one! 

 

Sandy, outside of the class photo, are there any other photos-perhaps yearbook- that confirm the missing tooth?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Joseph McBride writes:

Quote

I wonder what group "Jonathan Cohen" is working for. He pops up

now regularly with his kneejerk pro-WC comments, as

David Von Pein used to do as the designated disruptor

of intelligence discourse on this site.

Jonathan Cohen replies:

Quote

Joseph: I'm honored you think my postings rise to the level of paid disinformation specialist. Now I've really hit the big time! In reality, none of my comments here have EVER been pro-Warren Commission. I am as staunch a disbeliever in their findings and conclusions as you will find on this forum. Rather, my comments are in objection to JFK conspiracy theories that are at best implausible and unsupported by any hard evidence (ie, nearly every film and photo shot in Dealey Plaza was altered) and at worst simply preposterous (two distinct Lee Harvey Oswalds running around the United States independent of one another for a decade, "fake" Marguerite Oswalds, etc.). We all owe Tracy Parnell a debt of gratitude for his exhaustive debunking of the "Harvey and Lee" concept.

Leaving aside the question of why Mr McBride writes his comments in verse, that comment sums up the tin-foil-hat wing of JFK assassination enthusiasts. In their minds, questioning 'Harvey and Lee'-type nonsense is equivalent to expressing support for the lone-nut theory.

Do they really not understand that it is possible to question both the lone-nut theory and far-fetched, poorly supported super-conspiracy speculation such as Armstrong's long-term Oswald doppelganger project and Lifton's elaborate body-alteration scheme?

It really isn't necessary to believe in the moon-landings-level stuff in order to disbelieve the notion that President Kennedy was killed by a lone nut named Oswald. The evidence and arguments against the lone-nut scenario have nothing to do with 'Harvey and Lee' or Best Evidence or faking the Altgens 6 photo. You can take away all the faked photographs, faked home movies, faked presidential corpses, faked Oswalds, and faked Marguerites, and the arguments against the lone-nut scenario remain as strong as ever.

In fact, taking away all the speculative stuff makes the case against the lone-nut theory stronger. Think about how many people it takes to shoot a guy in a slow-moving open-topped car. Now think about how many people it takes to run an Oswald doppelganger project for over a decade, and then to install papier-mâché trees on the grassy knoll, and then to shoot a guy in a slow-moving open-topped car, and then to kidnap Kennedy's corpse from Air Force One without anyone noticing, and then to perform elaborate surgical alterations on the corpse, and then to track down and fake most of the photographs and films taken in Dealey Plaza.

The more complications you add, the less likely it is that they actually happened. The smaller the proposed conspiracy, the more likely it is that it actually happened.

We shouldn't be surprised that those who are attracted to one area of far-fetched speculation usually sign up for the full package. You name it, it was faked! One does wonder just how vast and implausible a conspiracy needs to be before those inclined to tin-foil-hattery start to think that, hmm, you know, maybe it didn't actually take hundreds of conspirators to pull off the assassination.

Unsolved mysteries such as the JFK assassination do seem to attract people who are inclined to see a conspiracy everywhere they look. It would be nice if all these tin-foil hat types would stick to the moon landings and UFOs rather than infest a serious topic such as the JFK assassination. Unfortunately, it's the presence of the tin-foil hat types that allows the media to portray genuine critics of the lone-nut theory as a bunch of crazies, thereby making it more difficult to uncover exactly what happened in Dealey Plaza.
 

[Jim Hargrove]

15 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Do we need books summarizing HARVEY AND LEE? Why not

read HARVEY AND LEE? If that's too hard for people, they

should find another field. The book is dense with information

but impressively researched and lucid.

For JFK researchers and other people intensely interested in the assassination, I couldn’t agree more.  But I do think that, for average people with only a passing interest in the case, asking them to read and comprehend Harvey and Lee is asking a lot.  Heck, I’ve been studying John’s tome more than anything else for more than 15 years and I still can’t remember lots of details in it. 

For history’s sake, I’d like to see a reasonably complete but easier-to-read summary of H&L for just plain everyday folks.  With the exception of the relatively brief material on Judyth Baker, Doppelganger by Dr. George Schwimmer fits the bill nicely, at least in my opinion.  I haven’t read Pat Shannan’s book yet. 

The support of a researcher/author of your stature is most appreciated!

[Jim Hargrove]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Providing "necessary links" is the only thing H&L critics can do. They won't debate the evidence here because they know they can't win. Instead they provide "necessary links" that are supposed to provide the debunkings.

Well I invite every skeptic to visit the links. And when you find evidence contradicting the H&L evidence, bring it on back here, show us all. I've been waiting years to see someone do that. Why is it taking so long? Because they have nothing to show other than saying the H&L evidence is all mistaken. An incompetent dentist, magic tooth-disappearing film, a scatter-brained mother who takes her son to the dentist to get his lip stitched up, and on and on. Holy zolita man, this is some crazy sheet.

Pretty creepy, isn’t it?  The anti-H&L folks simply won’t believe what is right in front of their eyes.

Why do we have such obvious evidence of two Oswalds?  I think it is because the “classroom antics” photo of American-born LEE Oswald was sold directly to LIFE magazine by Ed Voebel.  It didn’t first go through the FBI.

Did J. Edgar Hoover try to bury the evidence of two Oswalds?  Of course he did!  Why else within hours of the hit did he send agents to New York, Louisiana, and Texas to confiscate early education and employment records of “Lee Harvey Oswald?”  Why else did all those original records disappear?  New York City officials wanted to know, but, of course, they were ignored.  As the last paragraph of the document below shows, Hoover suspected there were two Oswalds as early as mid-1960.

I’d like to thank you again for your work on the dental records of LEE Oswald.  Among a number of other things, your discovery that he had a false tooth (or teeth) that was reported as failed by the Marine Corps on 5/5/58 was very significant.

Why did we get to see this evidence?  My guess is that someone at the FBI didn’t know what a “prosthesis” is, or simply didn’t recognize the significance of the notation.

On discovering the evidence for two Oswalds, we’re mostly dependent on errors the FBI made trying to cover it up.  It is amazing how much evidence survived.  Making an entire life disappear is tricky business!

[John Butler]

5 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Sandy, outside of the class photo, are there any other photos-perhaps yearbook- that confirm the missing tooth?

And, don't forget earlobes.  Harvey had them and Lee didn't.

Edited April 28, 2020 by John Butler

[W. Tracy Parnell]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Providing "necessary links" is the only thing H&L critics can do. They won't debate the evidence here because they know they can't win. Instead they provide "necessary links" that are supposed to provide the debunkings.

No, the H&L critics have debated the "evidence" right here many times. Anyone that doesn't believe me can do a search and see. But that is one purpose of websites-so you don't have to do the same thing over and over. Jim and David Josephs do "data dumps" and/or links here all the time and nobody has a problem with it. Links actually make much more sense and take up less bandwidth. But as I have pointed out many times, alternate explanations have been provided over and over, you guys just don't like them.

[Paul Bacon]

21 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

22 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

As with everything, there is a very simple, logical explanation about the "missing" tooth: that Voebel was mistaken.

Apparently Voebel's camera was mistaken too.

Priceless!  Thank you Ron.

[Cory Santos]

19 hours ago, John Butler said:

And, don't forget earlobes.  Harvey had them and Lee didn't.

Yes thank you.   I recall this picture.    It is better than the other picture because that picture appears to be an illusion.  It looks like his lips could be covering the front teeth.  I tried to find a clearer copy.   But assuming if is a missing tooth, it is different than the one above from the Ferrie photo.

[Ron Ecker]

Like the old proverb says, "The tooth will out."

 

 

[Ray Mitcham]

36 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

Like the old proverb says, "The tooth will out."

 

 

By gum.