Was it really just a MOLE HUNT about "Oswald?"

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

A few pages ago, Jim Hargrove made a claim. I have asked him several times to provide some evidence to back up his claim. He has so far failed to do so. It appears that there wasn't any evidence, and he was just making stuff up.

Jim's Claim

His claim was that the FBI "altered a document or two" to make it look as though a mastoidectomy operation was performed not on the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald, nor on imaginary 'Harvey and Lee' doppelganger A (as 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine states), but on imaginary 'Harvey and Lee' doppelganger B.

Doctrine versus Science

If Jim can't demonstrate that the relevant "document or two" were altered by the FBI or anyone else, the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is left with a serious problem.

According to doctrine, only one of the imaginary doppelgangers had undergone a mastoidectomy operation, and it was not the one who was buried in Oswald's grave. But the scientific report of the exhumation of Oswald's body makes it clear that the body in the grave had indeed undergone a mastoidectomy operation.

A central element of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is wrong. The carefully worked out biographies of the two imaginary doppelgangers, upon which the 'Harvey and Lee' theory depends, are contradicted by solid scientific evidence.

Four Options

'Harvey and Lee' believers such as Jim have four options:

(a) Claim that, contrary to established doctrine, both of the imaginary doppelgangers had the operation (and provide the necessary evidence to support this claim).

(b) Claim that the biographies of the two imaginary doppelgangers can be shuffled around somehow so that the one who ended up in Oswald's grave was the one who, contrary to established doctrine, had the operation (and, again, provide the necessary evidence).

(c) Claim that the scientific report was faked, presumably by creatures from the planet Zog or by shape-shifting lizards.

(d) Admit that the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, which was partly dreamt up by a fantasist who thought the moon landings were faked and that no planes hit the World Trade Center, is a load of made-up nonsense which is liable to tar every critic of the lone-nut theory as a crackpot 'conspiracy theorist'.

Jim seems to favour option (b). But he has so far refused to provide any evidence to support his claim. In fact, he has even refused to identify the "document or two" which he claims have been altered.

Jim's "Altered" Documents

Let's see if we can help out Jim. I've used the wonders of the internet to provide him with a "document or two" related to the mastoidectomy operation that was performed on the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. Can Jim show us how either or both of these documents have been altered?

- Document 1: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1141#relPageId=148

Warren Commission Exhibit 2218 (Hearings, vol.25, p.118) contains details of the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald's mastoidectomy operation at the age of six. Was this document altered? If so, what's the evidence that it was altered?

- Document 2: http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/nreport.htm

The report of the exhumation of the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald in 1981 shows that the body in the grave had undergone a mastoidectomy operation, contrary to established 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine. Was this document altered? If so, what's the evidence that it was altered?

Alternatively, did Jim have any other documents in mind when he claimed that "a document or two" were altered? If so, perhaps he could let us know what they are, so we can check them to see whether they were in fact altered. He could use the wonders of the internet to provide us with links to those documents, if they are available online.

Jim's Non-Altered Documents

If he can't demonstrate that "a document or two" were altered, he has two options:

(i) Admit that the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is a load of made-up nonsense.

(ii) Do his usual "look over there!" distraction act to avoid having to admit that the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is a load of made-up nonsense.

On the subject of which, Jim's usual "look over there!" talking points have been debated ad nauseam here and elsewhere on the web, as I and others have informed him several times. The information he's after is just a few clicks away, using the wonders of the internet.

Anyone who is not yet sick to death of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory (and at this stage, I'd guess that's a very, very small group of people), and who wants to find out more about it, can use this forum's search function or follow some of these links:

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13-the-harvey-lee-evidence

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1588-harvey-lee-links-to-alternative-explanations

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/search/label/Harvey%20%26%20Lee

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/2oswalds.htm

http://22november1963.org.uk/john-armstrong-harvey-and-lee-theory

One piece of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine which no longer appears in Jim's "look over there!" distraction act is the idea that both of the imaginary doppelgangers were arrested in the Texas Theater, and that each of them told the police that his name was Oswald, thereby giving away the long-term doppelganger scheme (although, strangely, no-one in the Dallas police department seems to have noticed that they had arrested two identical young white men with the same name in the same building at the same time). If Jim wants to debate this topic, or if any casual readers want to see how poorly supported and self-contradictory 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine is, this is a good starting point:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/?do=findComment&comment=407170

Where Is the Evidence of Alteration?

Jim's "look over there!" topics have been covered many times, but one topic that hasn't yet been dealt with properly, because Jim has refused several times to answer a simple question about it, is his claim that certain mastoidectomy documents have been altered. Let's see if Jim can at last get around to dealing with this simple question:

What evidence is there that the FBI (or creatures from the planet Zog, or shape-shifting lizards) "altered a document or two" relating to the mastoidectomy operation?

The Snake-Oil Salesman Question

There's another question that I've asked Jim many times. For some reason, he has avoided answering this one also. As I wrote in my previous post:

Quote

John Armstrong appears to have deliberately neglected to mention the existence of the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave. He knew that scientific evidence proved that a central part of his theory was false, and he concealed that evidence from his readers. It makes him look like a shifty snake-oil salesman, doesn't it?

Was Armstrong really being as dishonest as he appears? Or can Jim think up an alternative reason for his behaviour?

Come on, Jim. Why did John Armstrong fail to mention the mastoidectomy defect? It looks as though he was deliberately misleading his readers, doesn't it?

[Jim Hargrove]

23 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Once again, Mr. Bocjzuk admits that, although he has argued for years that the mastoidectomy disproves the conclusion by many researchers that two young men shared the identity of “Lee Harvey Oswald”, he apparently cannot identify the document or two that seems to indicate the procedure was performed on a youthful LHO.

Recently, he has begun demanding that I fetch the document for him!  

And yet, for far longer, I’ve been demanding that he debate HERE just a few factual points supporting the existence of two Lee Harvey Oswalds.  He steadfastly refuses to do so, occasionally offering a link and the claim that someone else has debunked the evidence.

No one else has debunked the evidence!  If someone else had, Mr. Bojczuk would be trumpeting the arguments here.  

HERE’S MY OFFER TO MR. BOJCZUK:    I’ll locate for him the mastoidectomy document(s) he is seemingly unable to find, but only after he FINALLY debates HERE the points I have asked him to examine FOR YEARS!  A link and a claim that evidence has been debunked somewhere else is not a debate.

Other than offering this solution, how else can I compel Mr. Bojczuk to debate me?  So….

I'll ask Mr. Bojczuk, for the 13th time now, to finally debate here the following issues. Or will he just say, as always, that someone else has successfully debunked these points and hide behind a flurry of links?  None of the issues below are debunked by any of the links Mr. Bojczuk has previously provided.  

• For the fall semester of the 1953-54 school year,  one Oswald attended Beauregard JHS in New Orleans for 89 school days while the other was enrolled in Public School 44 in New York City, where he was present for 62 full days and 5 half days, was absent 3 full days and 8 half days, for a total accounting of 78 days.
• For the next semester, one Oswald was at Beauregard JHS in New Orleans while the other Oswald attended Stripling School in Texas.
• The Social Security Administration did not include ANY of “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” teen-aged employment income in his “Lifetime Earnings Report” indicating in a cover letter it was including “Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report re employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to service in the Marine Corps.”
• One Oswald departed for Taiwan aboard the USS Skagit on Sept. 14, 1958 and was stationed in Ping Tung, Taiwan on Oct. 6, 1958, at the very same time the other Oswald was being treated for venereal disease at Atsugi, Japan, nearly 1500 miles away.
• One Oswald appeared at the Bolton Ford dealership in New Orleans while the other was in the Soviet Union.
• One Oswald had a driver’s license and was seen by many witnesses driving a car, and the other Oswald could not drive.
• On November 22, 1963, one Oswald left the Texas School Book Depository on a bus and then a taxi, and the other left in a Nash Rambler.

 

Let me repeat my offer again to Mr. Bojczuk.   I’ll locate for him the mastoidectomy document(s) he is seemingly unable to find, but only after he FINALLY debates HERE the points I have asked him to examine FOR YEARS! A link and a claim that evidence has been debunked somewhere else is not a debate.

This is now the 14th time I've asked for substantive debate on a half dozen or so Harvey and Lee points.  

[Jim Hargrove]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

One piece of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine which no longer appears in Jim's "look over there!" distraction act is the idea that both of the imaginary doppelgangers were arrested in the Texas Theater, and that each of them told the police that his name was Oswald, thereby giving away the long-term doppelganger scheme (although, strangely, no-one in the Dallas police department seems to have noticed that they had arrested two identical young white men with the same name in the same building at the same time). If Jim wants to debate this topic, or if any casual readers want to see how poorly supported and self-contradictory 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine is, this is a good starting point:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/?do=findComment&comment=407170

 

 From James Douglass's JFK and the Unspeakable:

Butch Burroughs, who witnessed Oswald’s arrest, startled me in his interview by saying he saw a second arrest occur in the Texas Theater only “three or four minutes later.”[444] He said the Dallas Police then arrested “an Oswald lookalike.” Burroughs said the second man “looked almost like Oswald, like he was his brother or something.”[445] When I questioned the comparison by asking, “Could you see the second man as well as you could see Oswald?” he said, “Yes, I could see both of them. They looked alike.”[446] After the officers half-carried and half-dragged Oswald to the police car in front of the theater, within a space of three or four minutes, Burroughs saw the second Oswald placed under arrest and handcuffed. The Oswald look-alike, however, was taken by police not out the front but out the back of the theater.[447]

What happened next we can learn from another neglected witness, Bernard Haire.[448]

Bernard J. Haire was the owner of Bernie’s Hobby House, just two doors east of the Texas Theater. Haire went outside his store when he saw police cars congregating in front of the theater.[449] When he couldn’t see what was happening because of the crowd, he went back through his store into the alley out back. It, too, was full of police cars, but there were fewer spectators. Haire walked up the alley. When he stopped opposite the rear door of the theater, he witnessed what he would think for decades was the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald.

“Police brought a young white man out,” Haire told an interviewer. “The man was dressed in a pullover shirt and slacks. He seemed to be flushed, as if he’d been in a struggle. Police put the man in a police car and drove off.”[450]

When Haire was told in 1987 that Lee Harvey Oswald had been brought out the front of the theater by police, he was shocked.

“I don’t know who I saw arrested,” he said in bewilderment.[451]

Butch Burroughs and Bernard Haire are complementary witnesses. From their perspectives both inside and outside the Texas Theater, they saw an Oswald double arrested and taken to a police car in the back alley only minutes after the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. Burroughs’s and Haire’s independent, converging testimonies provide critical insight into the mechanics of the plot. In a comprehensive intelligence scenario for Kennedy’s and Tippit’s murders, the plan culminated in Oswald’s Friday arrest and Sunday murder (probably a fallback from his being set up to be killed in the Texas Theater by the police).

There is a hint of the second Oswald’s arrest in the Dallas police records. According to the Dallas Police Department’s official Homicide Report on J. D. Tippit, “Suspect was later arrested in the balcony of the Texas theatre at 231 W. Jefferson.”[452]

Dallas Police detective L. D. Stringfellow also reported to Captain W. P. Gannaway, “Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater.”[453]

NOTES:

444. Author’s interview of Burroughs, July 16, 2007. Butch Burroughs is a man of few words. When asked a question, he answers exactly what he is asked. Burroughs told me no one had ever asked him before about a second arrest in the Texas Theater. In response to my question, “Now you didn’t see anybody else [besides Oswald] get arrested that day, did you?” he answered, “Yes, there was a lookalike—an Oswald lookalike.” In response to further questions, he described the second arrest, that of the “Oswald lookalike.” Ibid. Because Butch Burroughs saw neither Oswald nor his lookalike enter the Texas Theater, each must have gone directly up the balcony stairs on entering. Oswald crossed the balcony and came down the stairs on the far side of the lobby. There he entered the orchestra seats and began his seat-hopping, in apparent search of a contact. His lookalike sneaked into the theater at 1:45 P.M. and, like Oswald, went immediately up the balcony stairs. By the time Burroughs witnessed the Oswald double’s arrest, he had also come down the balcony stairs on the far side of the lobby, either on his own or already accompanied by police who had been checking the balcony. 

445. §
Ibid. 

446. §
Ibid. 

447. §
Ibid. 

448. §
In the data base of the JFK Records Act at the National Archives, there is no record of Bernard Haire. Archivist Martin F. McGann to James Douglass, July 20, 2007. 

449. §
In a photo taken about 1:50 P.M., November 22, 1963, that shows people gathering around the police cars in front of the Texas Theater, Bernard Haire can be seen at the edge of the crowd, leaning on a parking meter and trying to see. Photo by Stuart L. Reed; on p. 68, Myers, With Malice. 

450. §
Bernard J. Haire interview by Jim Marrs, summer 1987. Crossfire, p. 354. 

451. §
Ibid. 

452. §
Dallas Police Department Homicide Report on J. D. Tippit, November 22, 1963. Reproduced in With Malice, p. 447 (emphasis added). 

453. §
Letter from Detective L. D. Stringfellow to Captain W. P. Gannaway, November 23, 1963, Dallas City Archives. Cited in Harvey & Lee, p. 871 (emphasis added). 

-----------------------------

As we all know, Classic Oswald was arrested on the main floor of the Texas Theater.  And yet....

The Ed Forum's own Jim Glover talked to Mr. Burroughs in 1993 and Burroughs told him about the arrest of the Oswald look-alike in the theater. 

[John Butler]

On ‎6‎/‎11‎/‎2020 at 5:38 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

What's wrong with that? It's a factual statement. Mr Butler's approach to the photographic evidence is very much like that of Mr White, who would look at a photograph, spot what appeared to be an anomaly, ignore the obvious everyday explanations for the apparent anomaly, and jump to the conclusion that the photograph must therefore be a fake.

You can find an example of John Butler's version of Jack White's approach to the photographic evidence on this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25659-mass-hysteria-in-dealey-plaza/

Here's an excerpt of Mr Butler's wisdom, from that page:

Quote

Almost all of the visual record in Dealey Plaza was seized and changed to reflect the views of the assassination cover-up.  There is a great deal of this record that has never seen daylight.  It was seized and destroyed by the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and the Dallas authorities.

I am in good company:  Jack White and Harold Weisberg

Don't mind standing the shadow of Harold Weisberg either.  I could not with many year's effort have said this better.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

This may come as news to Jim, but it isn't up to me to find the documents he needs. He is the one who is claiming that they were altered. If you make a claim, it's up to you to justify it. That's how things work. At least, that's how things work in the rational world. In 'Harvey and Lee' world, you're allowed to just make stuff up as you go along.

What evidence can Jim produce to justify his claim? Which documents relating to Oswald's mastoidectomy were altered, and what evidence does Jim have that they were altered?

If, as we are all beginning to suspect, Jim is unable to justify his claim that the FBI altered one or more of the mastoidectomy documents, 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine has a problem. According to Scripture, the doppelganger who was buried in Oswald's grave had not undergone a mastoidectomy operation. But according to the scientists' report of Oswald's exhumation, the body in the grave had in fact undergone a mastoidectomy operation. A central element of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine has been shown to be false. Science 1 Scripture 0.

Even after I had in fact done Jim's job for him by providing him with links to two documents which deal with Oswald's mastoidectomy, he still refused to answer the question. Let's give him another opportunity. I'm now providing Jim with some new-fangled interwebby links to no fewer than five such documents, so that he can examine the documents at his leisure and decide whether they have been altered.

Here they are. Each comes with a handy check-list that Jim can consult when he finally gets around to producing some justification for the claim he made:

Mastoidectomy Document 1

Warren Commission Exhibit 2218 (Hearings, vol.25, p.118: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1141#relPageId=148) contains details of the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald's mastoidectomy operation in February 1946, when he was six years old.

Was this document altered? Pick an answer:

(a) Yes, this document was altered, and I am going to provide evidence to show that it was altered.
(b) No, this document was not altered.
(c) I am awaiting guidance from above, which will come to me in a vision. The prophet Armstrong will graciously reveal to me, his annointed spokesman, whether or not this document was altered. Praise be unto him!

Mastoidectomy Document 2

The scientists' report (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/norton1.htm) of the exhumation of the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald in 1981, which shows that the body in the grave had undergone a mastoidectomy operation, contrary to established 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine.

Was this document altered? Pick an answer:

(a) Yes, this document was altered, and I am going to provide evidence to show that it was altered.
(b) No, this document was not altered.
(c) Look over there! Bolton Ford! Stripling! Texas Theater!

Mastoidectomy Document 3

Warren Commission Hearings, vol.8, pp.223-4 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=36&relPageId=231) , the testimony of Dr Renatus Hartogs, who had examined the 13-year-old real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald and found that Oswald had "slightly impaired hearing in the left ear, resulting from a mastoidectomy in 1946."

Was this document altered? Pick an answer:

(a) Yes, this document was altered, and I am going to provide evidence to show that it was altered.
(b) No, this document was not altered.
(c) Please stop asking me all these awkward questions! It's making me very uncomfortable. I really want to believe in a long-term doppelganger scheme run by all-powerful evil overlords and involving two Oswalds who were unrelated but magically turned out to look identical, and two Marguerites, and extra-large heads, and missing teeth. It fits into my view of how the world works! So what if this far-fetched nonsense helps the media to portray all critics of the Warren Commission as a bunch of crackpots? Who cares about that?

Mastoidectomy Document 4

Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, p.592 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136#relPageId=600) , the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald's medical report on leaving the Marines in 1959, which refers to "Mastoid operation 1945" [sic].

Was this document altered? Pick an answer:

(a) Yes, this document was altered, and I am going to provide evidence to show that it was altered.
(b) No, this document was not altered.
(c) Not telling you! I'm a 'Harvey and Lee' believer! We don't need to justify our claims! Our faith is strong! Every single piece of evidence that contradicts our belief is a fake! Praise Armstrong!

Mastoidectomy Document 5

Warren Commission Hearings, vol.8, p.315 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=36#relPageId=323) , the testimony of Captain George Donabedian, a military doctor who interpreted the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald's Marine medical records: "in filling out his own forms on physicals, Oswald made reference to a mastoid operation which he had had when he was a child."

Was this document altered? Pick an answer:

(a) Yes, this document was altered, and I am going to provide evidence to show that it was altered.
(b) No, this document was not altered.
(c) OK, you've got me. None of these documents have been altered. I made it up. The 'Harvey and Lee' theory is indeed contradicted by solid scientific evidence. Hey, we all make mistakes. At least I'm big enough to admit that I was wrong.

Again: which of these documents does Jim think have been altered, and what evidence can he produce to show that the document or documents have been altered? If none of these documents fit the bill, it's up to Jim to produce the ones that he thinks were altered.

Or will he come clean and admit that he made up his claim that the FBI "altered a document or two" relating to the mastoidectomy operation? More likely, he won't be brave enough to do that, and his response will be the usual one:

"Look over there! Bolton Ford ... er ... Stripling ... er ... I'll answer later, once I've hosted a party ... " etc, etc.

Edited June 15, 2020 by Jeremy Bojczuk
Corrected a trivial typo

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

I decided to be generous in my previous post, and not ask the one question that Jim really doesn't want to answer.

But then I thought, why not ask the question? It has to do with the mastoidectomy, which is the topic Jim brought up with his "altered a document or two" claim in this thread. So I'll ask it, yet again, although I'm not expecting a reply. Let's see what Jim does to avoid answering the question this time.

It's the snake-oil salesman question. As I wrote:

Quote

John Armstrong appears to have deliberately neglected to mention the existence of the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave. He knew that scientific evidence proved that a central part of his theory was false, and he concealed that evidence from his readers. It makes him look like a shifty snake-oil salesman, doesn't it?

Was Armstrong really being as dishonest as he appears? Or can Jim think up an alternative reason for his behaviour?

What's the reason for John Armstrong's failure to mention the mastoidectomy defect? It looks as though he was deliberately misleading his readers, doesn't it?

Jim's had plenty of time to think up a less unflattering explanation for Armstrong's behaviour. Still no answer? No alternative explanation? Jim seems to be in agreement: Armstrong's behaviour makes him look an awful lot like a slippery snake-oil salesman.

I think it's time for another "look over there!" moment.

[Jim Hargrove]

On 6/13/2020 at 3:00 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

A few pages ago, Jim Hargrove made a claim. I have asked him several times to provide some evidence to back up his claim. He has so far failed to do so. It appears that there wasn't any evidence, and he was just making stuff up.

Jim's Claim

His claim was that the FBI "altered a document or two" to make it look as though a mastoidectomy operation was performed not on the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald, nor on imaginary 'Harvey and Lee' doppelganger A (as 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine states), but on imaginary 'Harvey and Lee' doppelganger B.

Now that Mr. Bojczuk FINALLY presents some evidence, I’d be happy to examine his points one by one:

Quote

 

Mastoidectomy Document 1

Warren Commission Exhibit 2218 (Hearings, vol.25, p.118: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1141#relPageId=148) contains details of the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald's mastoidectomy operation in February 1946, when he was six years old.

 

This report is clearly based on a fraudulent document. Examples of other fraudulent FBI reports abound in this case.  Some of the most egregious examples of false FBI reports were examined some years ago by Gil Jesus, who compiled this 3 minute YouTube video proving how the FBI lied in its reports about three Dealey Plaza witnesses to the assassination. 

THE FBI LIED

Other examples that we’ve often cited as FBI frauds are the 1958 IRS forms which do not include income from “Oswald’s” then-current employer, the U.S. Marine Corps, and the Magic Postal Money Order® for the Magic Rifle®, which had no bank endorsements at all, which were requited by Postal regulations.

Quote

 

Mastoidectomy Document 2

The scientists' report (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/norton1.htm) of the exhumation of the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald in 1981

 

The exhumation merely proved that the Russian-speaking Lee HARVEY Oswald, the man killed by Jack Ruby, indeed had a mastoidectomy when he was young.

Quote

 

Mastoidectomy Document 3

Warren Commission Hearings, vol.8, pp.223-4 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=36&relPageId=231) , the testimony of Dr Renatus Hartogs, who had examined the 13-year-old real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald and found that Oswald had "slightly impaired hearing in the left ear, resulting from a mastoidectomy in 1946."

 

Both Oswalds were in the Marines. This refers to the Russian-speaking Oswald killed by Jack Ruby.I’m so glad Mr. Bojczuk brings up Renatus Hartogs, because Hartogs clearly interviewed the Russian-speaking Lee HARVEY Oswald, who had the mastoidectomy.  But the FBI went to extraordinary efforts to hide that fact.  Here is the background:

 

In 1953 Lee HARVEY Oswald was sent to Youth House for habitual truancy from a NYC school.  Documents collected by the FBI and published by the Warren Commission seemed to say that Youth House personnel saw this Oswald as a “well-built” and “well-developed” boy.

 

But this was an invention of the FBI.  Both Dr. Milton Kurian and Dr. Renatus Hartogs of Youth House said later that the Oswald they met was a slight, underdeveloped kid.

Dr. Kurian said the Oswald he met (HARVEY) was no more that 4’ 6” or 4’ 8” tall, even though NYC records made less than a month later would indicate Oswald’s height as 5’ 4 1/2” tall (that was Lee).  In a letter to Jackie Kennedy written in early February 1964, Dr. Kurian described Oswald as a “slender, underdeveloped boy.”

Dr. Renatus Hartogs, Milton Kurian’s associate at Youth House, also described little Harvey in sharp contrast to the reports the FBI produced.  Dr. Hartogs said that the Oswald he met was a “slender, dark-haired boy” with “an underfed look, reminiscent of the starved children I had seen in concentration camps.”

The size difference between the two Oswalds decreased in the decade between Harvey’s Youth House appearance and the assassination, but it continued for the whole time.  When LEE Harvey Oswald was was released from the Marine Corps, his height was 71” (5’ 11”) and his weight was 150 lbs.

But on a slab in the Dallas morgue, Lee HARVEY Oswald’s height was just 69” (5’ 9”).  These were measurements made by medical professionals, not casual observers.  

 

Quote

 

Mastoidectomy Document 4

Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, p.592 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136#relPageId=600) , the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald's medical report on leaving the Marines in 1959, which refers to "Mastoid operation 1945" [sic].

 

Both Oswalds were in the Marines.  This refers to the Russian-speaking Oswald killed by Jack Ruby.

Quote

 

Mastoidectomy Document 5

Warren Commission Hearings, vol.8, p.315 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=36#relPageId=323) , the testimony of Captain George Donabedian, a military doctor who interpreted the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald's Marine medical records: "in filling out his own forms on physicals, Oswald made reference to a mastoid operation which he had had when he was a child."

 

Again, this is a reference to Russian-speaking Lee HARVEY Oswald, who had the mastoidectomy.

Isn’t it amazing that Mr. Bojczuk is clearly afraid to debate any other H&L evidence except the mastoidectomy.  Now that he has FINALLY presented his specific questions, and I have answered them just a couple of hours after he first presented them, will he go on to answer mine?

I'll ask him, for the 15th time now, to finally debate here the following issues. Or will he just say, as always, that someone else has successfully debunked these points and hide behind a flurry of links?  None of the issues below are debunked by any of the links Mr. Bojczuk has previously provided.  

• For the fall semester of the 1953-54 school year,  one Oswald attended Beauregard JHS in New Orleans for 89 school days while the other was enrolled in Public School 44 in New York City, where he was present for 62 full days and 5 half days, was absent 3 full days and 8 half days, for a total accounting of 78 days.
• For the next semester, one Oswald was at Beauregard JHS in New Orleans while the other Oswald attended Stripling School in Texas.
• The Social Security Administration did not include ANY of “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” teen-aged employment income in his “Lifetime Earnings Report” indicating in a cover letter it was including “Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report re employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to service in the Marine Corps.”
• One Oswald departed for Taiwan aboard the USS Skagit on Sept. 14, 1958 and was stationed in Ping Tung, Taiwan on Oct. 6, 1958, at the very same time the other Oswald was being treated for venereal disease at Atsugi, Japan, nearly 1500 miles away.
• One Oswald appeared at the Bolton Ford dealership in New Orleans while the other was in the Soviet Union.
• One Oswald had a driver’s license and was seen by many witnesses driving a car, and the other Oswald could not drive.
• On November 22, 1963, one Oswald left the Texas School Book Depository on a bus and then a taxi, and the other left in a Nash Rambler.

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

This report [CE 2218] is clearly based on a fraudulent document.

And that's it. How, exactly, is the report "based on a fraudulent document"? Jim doesn't tell us. What is the "fraudulent document" on which it is based? Jim doesn't tell us that either. It looks as though there was no "fraudulent document", and Jim is just making stuff up again.

Merely stating that the FBI altered other documents in the JFK case isn't the same as showing that a particular document has been altered, especially when you can't even tell us which document you're talking about. What is the "fraudulent document" that Jim is referring to? Does it actually exist?

Evidently, Document 1 wasn't altered. What about Document 2? This is what Jim has to say:

Quote

The exhumation merely proved that the Russian-speaking Lee HARVEY Oswald, the man killed by Jack Ruby, indeed had a mastoidectomy when he was young.

What the exhumation proved was that a central feature of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine is false. That doctrine, based on the carefully worked out biographies of its two central characters, proclaims that the body in the grave had not undergone a mastoidectomy. The scientific report shows otherwise: the body had indeed undergone a mastoidectomy.

What the exhumation certainly didn't prove, and what Jim has so far failed to prove, is his assertion that an imaginary doppelganger was buried in Oswald's grave. That's hardly surprising, since the imaginary doppelganger in question was a character in a work of fiction. If Jim wants to challenge 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine by rearranging the biographies of its two central characters so that imaginary doppelganger X rather than imaginary doppelganger Y ended up in Oswald's grave, he needs to provide evidence and argument, not mere assertions.

Evidently, Document 2 wasn't altered either. What about Documents 3 and 4? Over to Jim, who copies and pastes the same reply to each document:

Quote

Both Oswalds were in the Marines. This refers to the Russian-speaking Oswald killed by Jack Ruby.

The documents in question make no mention of more than one Oswald. They refer to one person, the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald, who was indeed killed by Jack Ruby and buried in Rose Hill Cemetery, Fort Worth, only to be exhumed in 1981 and shown to have undergone a mastoidectomy operation, thereby disproving a fundamental element of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine.

"Both Oswalds" indeed! That's a fine example of begging the question: the practice of assuming to be true that which you are obliged to prove. It's generally done by people who are dishonest and know exactly what they are doing, or by people who are deluded and don't know what they are doing. Many of these people are peddlars of far-fetched beliefs, and are prone to making assertions unsupported by evidence or argument. I'm thinking of religious fundamentalists, though you may have other candidates in mind.

Regarding Document 3, Jim adds:

Quote

Hartogs clearly interviewed the Russian-speaking Lee HARVEY Oswald, who had the mastoidectomy.

Hartogs clearly interviewed the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald, who indeed had undergone a mastoidectomy at the age of six, and whose body was exhumed in 1981, proving that a central feature of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine was false.

Evidently, Documents 3 and 4 weren't altered either. How about Document 5? Was that one altered? All we get is this:

Quote

Again, this is a reference to Russian-speaking Lee HARVEY Oswald, who had the mastoidectomy.

Again, Document 5 refers to the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald, who had undergone a mastoidectomy and was not an imaginary doppelganger in a work of fiction.

Evidently, none of the five documents I found were altered. Not only has Jim failed to demonstrate that any of them were altered, but, unsurprisingly, he hasn't managed to produce any other mastoidectomy-related candidates for alteration.

So much for Jim's unsupported assertion that the FBI "altered a document or two" to conceal the existence of a mastoidectomy that was performed on an imaginary doppelganger from eastern Europe. All of these unaltered documents refer to the mastoidectomy that was performed on the one and only, real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald.

'Harvey and Lee' doctrine remains as it was: the body in Oswald's grave was that of an imaginary doppelganger who had not undergone a mastoidectomy. That doctrine is false. The body in the grave had undergone a mastoidectomy. 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine has been known to be false ever since the report of Oswald's exhumation was published in 1984, nearly two decades before John Armstrong's book Harvey and Lee was published. And Armstrong knew it was false, because he cited the exhumation report in his book.

As predicted, Jim has also given us an extra serving of "look over there!" and a kind invitation to join him in debating topics that have been covered many times already, here and elsewhere. What we haven't been treated to is a reply to the question Jim is least inclined to answer. Since Jim is a big fan of copying and pasting, here it is again:

Quote

John Armstrong appears to have deliberately neglected to mention the existence of the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave. He knew that scientific evidence proved that a central part of his theory was false, and he concealed that evidence from his readers. It makes him look like a shifty snake-oil salesman, doesn't it?

Was Armstrong really being as dishonest as he appears? Or can Jim think up an alternative reason for his behaviour?

Jim still hasn't been able to come up with an alternative explanation for Armstrong's behaviour in not mentioning the existence of a mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave.

Jim clearly accepts that Armstrong's behaviour was dishonest. Your guru was deliberately misleading his readers, wasn't he, Jim?

[Jim Hargrove]

Jeremy Bojczuk pleads his case

Mr. Bojczuk continues his obvious plan to discuss only the mastoidectomy and to ignore all the other evidence I have asked him dozens of times to consider.  He pretends all the other evidence is a “distraction” and will only discuss the evidence he feels comfortable with—the mastoidectomy.  Can you imagine making this argument in a court of law?  Let’s see....

MR. BOJCZUK.  Your honor, the defendant clearly killed Mr. Oswald by stabbing him in the head near the ear with an ice pick.

JUDGE.  How do we know that, Mr. B?

MR. BOJCZUK. Because, your honor, we have a report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation saying Mr. Oswald had a hole in his left mastoid process.

JUDGE.  But, Mr. B, the defense has demonstrated convincing evidence that, on many occasions, the FBI has falsified evidence in this very case about Mr. Oswald.

MR. BOJCZUK. That’s irrelevant, you honor!

JUDGE.  Why is that?

MR. BOJCZUK. Well, uh, um, because it hurts our case and everyone knows our case is great!

JUDGE: That may be, but the defense also states that Mr. Oswald is not really dead, that the defendant actually killed someone who looked like him.  If that is true, you will need to write new charges and pursue a new trial.

MR. BOJCZUK. It is not true, your honor.  There was only one Oswald!  Case closed!

JUDGE.  That’s not what the defense says.  It has offered the court dozens of pieces of evidence showing that there were two different young men using the identity of Oswald.

MR. BOJCZUK.  That’s absurd, your honor.  There was only one Oswald.    

JUDGE.  Perhaps if we examine the evidence in detail, you can show that it is absurd.

MR. BOJCZUK.  But… but... I’ve looked at all of it and I can’t prove it is absurd.  Other people can, though.  Have you heard about these other people?

JUDGE.  All that matters to the court is the evidence presented here, in this forum.

MR. BOJCZUK. But I refuse to look at any other evidence.  Other evidence is just a distraction.  The defense is just telling the court to “Look over there” and not accept the FBI report and the document it describes.

JUDGE.  Because the defense has offered compelling evidence that the FBI fabricated other evidence in this case, the court will examine ALL the evidence.

MR. BOJCZUK. Objection, your honor.  We can’t look at all the evidence.  It’s just too… too… icky!

JUDGE.  You wish to ignore all the other evidence?

MR. BOJCZUK. We have to your honor.  Didn’t I already say how icky it is?

JUDGE: You’ve been saying that for years, Mr. B.  The court rules that the only fair way to proceed is to examine all the evidence.

MR. BOJCZUK. But, your honor, have you seen the FBI report?

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Jeremy Bojczuk pleads his case

Mr. Bojczuk continues his obvious plan to discuss only the mastoidectomy and to ignore all the other evidence I have asked him dozens of times to consider.  He pretends all the other evidence is a “distraction” and will only discuss the evidence he feels comfortable with—the mastoidectomy.  Can you imagine making this argument in a court of law?  Let’s see....

MR. BOJCZUK.  Your honor, the defendant clearly killed Mr. Oswald by stabbing him in the head near the ear with an ice pick.

JUDGE.  How do we know that, Mr. B?

MR. BOJCZUK. Because, your honor, we have a report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation saying Mr. Oswald had a hole in his left mastoid process.

JUDGE.  But, Mr. B, the defense has demonstrated convincing evidence that, on many occasions, the FBI has falsified evidence in this very case about Mr. Oswald.

MR. BOJCZUK. That’s irrelevant, you honor!

JUDGE.  Why is that?

MR. BOJCZUK. Well, uh, um, because it hurts our case and everyone knows our case is great!

JUDGE: That may be, but the defense also states that Mr. Oswald is not really dead, that the defendant actually killed someone who looked like him.  If that is true, you will need to write new charges and pursue a new trial.

MR. BOJCZUK. It is not true, your honor.  There was only one Oswald!  Case closed!

JUDGE.  That’s not what the defense says.  It has offered the court dozens of pieces of evidence showing that there were two different young men using the identity of Oswald.

MR. BOJCZUK.  That’s absurd, your honor.  There was only one Oswald.    

JUDGE.  Perhaps if we examine the evidence in detail, you can show that it is absurd.

MR. BOJCZUK.  But… but... I’ve looked at all of it and I can’t prove it is absurd.  Other people can, though.  Have you heard about these other people?

JUDGE.  All that matters to the court is the evidence presented here, in this forum.

MR. BOJCZUK. But I refuse to look at any other evidence.  Other evidence is just a distraction.  The defense is just telling the court to “Look over there” and not accept the FBI report and the document it describes.

JUDGE.  Because the defense has offered compelling evidence that the FBI fabricated other evidence in this case, the court will examine ALL the evidence.

MR. BOJCZUK. Objection, your honor.  We can’t look at all the evidence.  It’s just too… too… icky!

JUDGE.  You wish to ignore all the other evidence?

MR. BOJCZUK. We have to your honor.  Didn’t I already say how icky it is?

JUDGE: You’ve been saying that for years, Mr. B.  The court rules that the only fair way to proceed is to examine all the evidence.

MR. BOJCZUK. But, your honor, have you seen the FBI report?

 

Jim,

I've been sitting here trying to develop an analogy that would illustrate to the readers Jeremy's illogical line of reasoning (which has at it's core a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning, but has other fallacies as well). How pleased I was to see that you have written your own.

Bravo! Your analogy gives a good sense of how frustrating it must be to argue a point with Jeremy. Though I think it would have been better had you used a non-Oswald character in your analogy, because IMO using Oswald will probably lead to confusion for readers not intimately familiar with the case.

All Jeremy has in his defense is the mastoidectomy issue. But that really doesn't prove anything. Because even in the worst case situation for Jim's side, where for some reason he is forced to concede that both Oswalds had a mastoidectomy, that is not a far-fetched idea at all. Mastoidectomies were fairly common before penicillin became widely available.

 

Edited June 16, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[Jim Hargrove]

Thanks, Sandy.  Mr. Bojczuk uses every rhetorical trick he can conjure to make it appear that I am avoiding the evidence when, in fact, he avoids all evidence except the one thing he is willing to consider: the mastoidectomy.  He will discuss NOTHING else.

All he can ever do is to hide behind hyperlinks and claim someone else, somewhere else has debunked everything.  He is clearly afraid to describe any of these so-called debunking here because he knows, if they exist at all, they are stupid.

But, hope springs eternal and so....

I'll ask Mr. Bojczuk, for the 16th time now, to finally debate here the following issues. Or will he just say, as always, that someone else has successfully debunked these points and hide behind a flurry of links?  None of the issues below are debunked by any of the links Mr. Bojczuk has previously provided.  

• For the fall semester of the 1953-54 school year,  one Oswald attended Beauregard JHS in New Orleans for 89 school days while the other was enrolled in Public School 44 in New York City, where he was present for 62 full days and 5 half days, was absent 3 full days and 8 half days, for a total accounting of 78 days.
• For the next semester, one Oswald was at Beauregard JHS in New Orleans while the other Oswald attended Stripling School in Texas.
• The Social Security Administration did not include ANY of “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” teen-aged employment income in his “Lifetime Earnings Report” indicating in a cover letter it was including “Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report re employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to service in the Marine Corps.”
• One Oswald departed for Taiwan aboard the USS Skagit on Sept. 14, 1958 and was stationed in Ping Tung, Taiwan on Oct. 6, 1958, at the very same time the other Oswald was being treated for venereal disease at Atsugi, Japan, nearly 1500 miles away.
• One Oswald appeared at the Bolton Ford dealership in New Orleans while the other was in the Soviet Union.
• One Oswald had a driver’s license and was seen by many witnesses driving a car, and the other Oswald could not drive.
• On November 22, 1963, one Oswald left the Texas School Book Depository on a bus and then a taxi, and the other left in a Nash Rambler.

I'll get this started for Mr. Bojczuk by examining the first point above.

For the fall semester of the 1953-54 school year,  one Oswald attended Beauregard JHS in New Orleans for 89 school days while the other was enrolled in Public School 44 in New York City, where he was present for 62 full days and 5 half days, was absent 3 full days and 8 half days, for a total accounting of 78 days.

Here are the school records proving the above, which were published in the Warren volumes because Hoover and the WC made a grave error and missed the significance of these details.

Mr. Bojczuk knows all too well that there are all kinds of supporting documents giving additional details about these school records, which is perhaps one of the reasons he is clearly afraid to discuss this topic here.  

What can we expect next from Mr. Bojczuk?  My prediction is that it will be one of two things: Either a link or links falsely claiming someone else has debunked the above, or more about the mastoidectomy. Let’s see if I’m wrong.
 

Edited June 16, 2020 by Jim Hargrove

[Jonathan Cohen]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I've been sitting here trying to develop an analogy that would illustrate to the readers Jeremy's illogical line of reasoning...

 

You're kidding, right? Jeremy has absolutely destroyed the key point of this entire ridiculous theory. but HE is the one with an illogical line of reasoning? As always, if you need me, I'll be having cocktails with the "short, dumpy" Marguerite Oswald. Or, wait. Maybe it's the "tall, attractive, well-dressed" Marguerite. I'll let you know.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

35 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I'll get this started for Mr. Bojczuk by examining the first point above.

Here's what Jim won't tell you. On Armstrong's CD there is a document that refutes the whole thing. It states for the date entered "1954-1-13." That same document states "Last School PS 44 New York." So there were not 2 Oswalds attending different schools at all. Jim will probably say that they had to alter the document which is what he says about any piece of evidence that doesn't match the H&L theory. Of course, the old joke is how do H&L people know what is fake? It doesn't fit the theory.

We know that on January 6, the one and only Marguerite expressed to Carro her reservations about an additional court appearance for the one and only LHO. She didn't want to go. Funny thing, on the 10th, Grote from Big Brothers found out from Carro that Marguerite and LHO had left the city (CE 2223). Lo and behold, on the 13th, Marguerite and LHO turn up in New Orleans where he is enrolled at Beauregard. According to Google, it takes about 20 hours to drive from NY to New Orleans so they had plenty of time to get there. No mystery here.

As for the school records, if you didn't know any better and read the records one way and one way only, you could be led to believe something was funny. But there is another way to interpret the records (and every other piece of "evidence" for H&L) as Greg Parker showed:

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

So, Jim is being disingenuous when he says that Jeremy or anyone else has not provided alternative explanations to the points he has raised. In fact, Greg Parker has an entire section on his site titled just that "alternative explanations."

Now, Jim may not like the alternative explanations or agree with them, but they do exist even though at one point he actually claimed that anything that was not on the EF did not exist. Jeremy is correct, the H&L theory is snake oil.

[Sandy Larsen]

7 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I've been sitting here trying to develop an analogy that would illustrate to the readers Jeremy's illogical line of reasoning...

 

You're kidding, right? Jeremy has absolutely destroyed the key point of this entire ridiculous theory. but HE is the one with an illogical line of reasoning? As always, if you need me, I'll be having cocktails with the "short, dumpy" Marguerite Oswald. Or, wait. Maybe it's the "tall, attractive, well-dressed" Marguerite. I'll let you know.

 

Jonathan,

Kindly explain to me how Jeremy's argument destroys the H&L theory.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Here's what Jim won't tell you. On Armstrong's CD there is a document that refutes the whole thing. It states for the date entered "1954-1-13." That same document states "Last School PS 44 New York." So there were not 2 Oswalds attending different schools at all. Jim will probably say that they had to alter the document which is what he says about any piece of evidence that doesn't match the H&L theory. Of course, the old joke is how do H&L people know what is fake? It doesn't fit the theory.

We know that on January 6, the one and only Marguerite expressed to Carro her reservations about an additional court appearance for the one and only LHO. She didn't want to go. Funny thing, on the 10th, Grote from Big Brothers found out from Carro that Marguerite and LHO had left the city (CE 2223). Lo and behold, on the 13th, Marguerite and LHO turn up in New Orleans where he is enrolled at Beauregard. According to Google, it takes about 20 hours to drive from NY to New Orleans so they had plenty of time to get there. No mystery here.

As for the school records, if you didn't know any better and read the records one way and one way only, you could be led to believe something was funny. But there is another way to interpret the records (and every other piece of "evidence" for H&L) as Greg Parker showed:

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

So, Jim is being disingenuous when he says that Jeremy or anyone else has not provided alternative explanations to the points he has raised. In fact, Greg Parker has an entire section on his site titled just that "alternative explanations."

Now, Jim may not like the alternative explanations or agree with them, but they do exist even though at one point he actually claimed that anything that was not on the EF did not exist. Jeremy is correct, the H&L theory is snake oil.

 

Now Tracy, you know very well that none of those supposed Greg Parker debunkings in fact debunk anything. I've asked you many times in the past to explain how they debunk and you have never been able to explain.