The Far-Reaching Influence of “Harvey and Lee”

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Mark Stevens writes:

Quote

I think it is incredibly interesting that Hargrove will quote a post talking about me, and he himself will talk about me but will not actually discuss the topics I've posted, even after explicitly stating he would.

prove your argument. At least provide reasonable suspicion.  No matter how many times you remind us that the articles exist, no matter how many times you say that the Stripling statements mean something, none of it will ever be proof that Oswald attended Stripling. In light of the facts of your evidence, nothing you've presented has even created reasonable suspicion.

You need to look at things from Jim's point of view, Mark.

The 'Harvey and Lee' believers' big problem is that they simply don't have any proof that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling. Of all the documents that might show the existence of the doppelganger, such as student directories, yearbooks, report cards, and photographs both official and unofficial, none have yet been discovered, although John Armstrong would surely have looked hard to find them.

All the evidence they've put forward has a perfectly plausible alternative explanation: easily understandable mistakes, and decades-old recollections.

What can they do apart from misrepresent you, ignore your criticism while posting the same stuff over and over and over again, and finally change the subject?

Well, I suppose they could be honest about it, and write something like this:

Quote

We have no proof that anyone named Oswald, apart from Robert, attended Stripling Junior High School. We have no documentary records, some of which at least ought to have survived.

All we have is a few words in a handful of newspaper articles and a few statements from a small number of people who claimed to have known of Oswald's existence four decades earlier. All of this evidence, however, has a plausible alternative explanation, and we are grateful to our critics, Mark Stevens in particular, for pointing this out.

There is some evidence that Oswald attended Stripling, although it doesn't amount to much. Take it or leave it.

Rather than acknowledge the weakness of their evidence, we get this sort of thing, in this case from Jim:

Quote

Robert Oswald attended Stripling School in 1948 and 1949; LHO attended the same school in 1954.

Stating as a fact that which he needs to prove! No doubt this will be followed by the usual copy-and-paste regurgitation of the same stuff Mark and others have already shown to be flimsy.

It makes you wonder why they bother. If their goal is to attract casual readers to their cause, they are going about it in quite the wrong way. There can't be many casual readers who haven't seen through the 'Harvey and Lee' believers' tactics.

Stripling is supposed to be their strongest area of evidence. If it's so strong, let's see them deal honestly with Mark's criticism:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/

As Mark writes:

Quote

your best bet would be to tighten your belt and actually defend your position. Don't post yet another summary of the evidence. Show us how it is in fact evidence. Don't just post the articles again. Explain the provenance of their reporting. Explain how they prove Oswald attended Stripling. Don't school us again on the fact that they exist.

 

Edited August 1, 2020 by Jeremy Bojczuk
Removed "in the early 1950s" from the end of "We have no proof that anyone named Oswald, apart from Robert, attended Stripling Junior High School"

[James Norwood]

On 7/21/2020 at 7:08 PM, Mark Stevens said:

In closing, I do believe if you read what I actually said regarding all of this, valid points are presented which challenge the credibility of it all. The link to the topic is given in the OP by Norwood, I would definitely appreciate feedback from anyone regarding any potential errors.

 Mark,

There is currently an excellent thread running on the Ed Forum entitled “Did EVEN the Warren Commission Believe Howard Brennan?”  The posts of various forum members spin off of the excellent article about Brennan written by Jim DiEugenio.  The article and the comments get at the heart of a persuasive refutation of one of the most important eyewitnesses used by the Warren Commission in order to place Oswald in the sixth-floor window at the time of the shooting.

You could learn a great deal from studying the article and the thread because of the limitations of your attempt to discredit the bona fide eyewitnesses who identified Oswald as a student at Stripling Junior High School in 1954-55.

Here are two major flaws in your analysis:

(1)  In examining eyewitness testimony in a vacuum without reference to other evidence, you fail to ask the right questions, and you lead the reader astray in order to assess the reliability of what the eyewitness is recalling.

(2)  With a series of non-essential questions, you set an absurdly high threshold to determine the credibility of eyewitnesses such that any eyewitness would be deemed unreliable, based on your criteria.

In your discourse, you frequently refer to judges, attorneys, and courtroom situations as a benchmark for determining accurate eyewitness recall.  It is as if you have been influenced by television dramas depicting the cross-examination of an eyewitness in the final minutes of the program in which the attorney dramatically pokes a hole in the individual’s veracity through a single tactical question.  In the process of relying so heavily on Perry Mason-like melodramas, your analysis is pedestrian, and it reveals a deficiency in your understanding of how human memory works.

Here are examples of your flawed methodology in discussing the two most important Stripling eyewitnesses, Frank Kudlaty and Fran Schubert:

(1)  FRANK KUDLATY

There is only one critical question to ask about Frank Kudlaty’s testimony, and that is the one that you refuse to address in your critique:  whether or not Vice-Principal Kudlaty is persuasive in his recall of the visit from the FBI agents on 11/23/63 in which he handed over to them a file on Lee Harvey Oswald from the Stripling records.  All of your questions about the contents of the file have no bearing on the main issue of Kudlaty remembering the visit from the FBI.  Of course, John Armstrong discusses those ancillary issues in his nearly 1,000-page book.  But the purpose of the Stripling debate on this forum is to arrive at a conclusion about a single issue:  Was Kudlaty’s testimony credible about surrendering a file to the FBI about a student who had attended Stripling Junior High School?  Unless you can convincingly challenge Kudlaty’s memory of that specific act carried out on 11/23/63, then the Stripling debate is over.

Kudlaty recalled that he only had time to glance at the records, prior to the arrival of the FBI agents.  And yet, from that “glance,” Kudlaty did what any educator would likely do in his place:  he looked at Oswald’s grades and noticed that they were not very good grades.  A mundane admission like this gives Kudlaty’s testimony even greater credibility.  Of course, that point is never covered in your critique.  Nearly all of your questions about Kudlaty pertain to what might have been in the file that he admitted he was able only to give a quick glance.  His recall of the low grades lends even more credibility to his story.


(2)  FRAN SCHUBERT

By falling back on your pop culture legal terminology, you have determined that the key question that Schubert must answer is "How did you know the boy was Oswald?"  That question presumes that, after the passing of forty years, Schubert would somehow be able to recall the circumstances in which she first came to know the name of boy she was describing in the interview.  Unfortunately, that is not the way memory works, and it is a question that neither she nor any eyewitness should be expected to answer forty years after the fact.  In her detailed and persuasive testimony, Schubert recalled discrete moments through triggers, such as the following:

• Schubert recalled a physical mannerism of Oswald that appeared to her to be “cocky,” and that visual image remained with her over the years to be able to recall the manner in which he walked in the halls of Stripling Junior High School;

• Schubert recalled Oswald on the schoolyard when he was with a group of boys wearing black leather jackets.  Oswald’s jacket was uniquely brown, and that made him stand out in her mind and remember him on the playground forty years later; and

• Schubert recalled Oswald’s home across the street from the school because he was one of the privileged students allowed to leave the campus and go home for lunch.  She and others less fortunate had to remain on the school grounds.  The fact that she observed him leaving the campus during the noon hour left an impression that she was able to recall forty years later.

Each of the three moments above was tied to a sensory image that triggered the recall of the memory in the eyewitness.  There would likely be no such trigger with the mundane occurrence of how Schubert first learned Oswald’s name or what month of the year he was enrolled at the school.  The three memories above, plus Schubert’s recall of the academic year 1954-55, and the corroboration of key parts of her testimony by others, makes her a credible eyewitness.  In your analogy of the courtroom, your questions would be deemed irrelevant.


SUMMARY

• Your attempt to refute the testimony of credible eyewitnesses is light years away from the methodology used in assessing the enormous inconsistencies in Howard Brennan’s testimony in the thread noted above.  Anyone could write a set of questions that an eyewitness would be incapable of answering, then write off that witness as unreliable.  In your analysis of Kudlaty, you have failed to examine all of the details of Kudlaty’s testimony, and you sidestep the defining issue of whether his testimony about surrendering the Oswald file to the FBI is credible.  Your analysis of this key witness is unpersuasive because you have failed to ask the right question.  Is Kudlaty credible on this single point? 

• In your analysis of Schubert and the other eyewitnesses, you raise the threshold of credibility to absurd lengths, expecting them to be able to answer questions that were never posed to them by interviewers and that are likely unanswerable.  You then rely on the absence of responses to your hypothetical questions as the basis for dismissing the eyewitnesses!  The method you are applying to these eyewitnesses could be applied to any eyewitness in the JFK case (doctors at Parkland, Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses, or anyone who came into contact with Oswald) in order to discredit them.  In your unpersuasive approach to examining testimony, any eyewitness is thereby deemed unreliable, and you might as well be saying, “We’ll never know the truth about Oswald, and we’ll never know the truth about the death of President Kennedy.” 


CONCLUSION

On numerous occasions, I have pointed the inherent bias in everything you write about the Stripling evidence.  An objective observer would examine the evidence impartially.  In your case, you found the idea of the two Oswalds impossible to fathom, then proceeded with manic energy to try to refute it by asking a string questions that no eyewitness could possibly be expected to answer forty years after the fact.  The transparent bias destroys any credibility in your analysis.  It would be well worth your time to study and learn from the Howard Brennan thread.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 7/31/2020 at 2:55 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy .... has failed to produce any such documentary evidence [of a mastoidectomy in the other Oswald] !

 

We've already seen the documentary evidence for both boys' mastoidectomies. We have the medical file from Harris Hospital for LEE, and the exhumation notes for HARVEY.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 7/31/2020 at 2:58 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The critics don't need to prove anything. All they need to do is provide plausible alternative explanations. They have done so for the newspaper articles: Robert Oswald was mistaken.

 

What's your plausible explanation for HARVEY's Stripling school records that Vice Principal Kudlaty said he gave to the FBI?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 7/31/2020 at 2:58 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Again, the burden of proof is on Jim and his friends. So far, they have produced nothing remotely resembling proof that any Oswald, real or imaginary, other than Robert attended Stripling.

 

Well sure, if you ignore all the evidence that Jim Hargrove keeps posting. And indeed you are very good at ignoring things you don't like. But then, ideologues are like that.

If you don't ignore the evidence, you will see that there is a lot it indicating Oswald attended Stripling. Including the statement of the vice principle of Stripling at the time who said he gave HARVEY's school records to the FBI.

 

Edited August 3, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

We've already seen the documentary evidence for both boys' mastoidectomies. We have the medical file from Harris Hospital for LEE, and the exhumation notes for HARVEY.

[Slaps forehead]

I have a theory that the person known to history as Lee Harvey Oswald was in fact two different entities: a shape-shifting lizard who underwent a mastoidectomy operation at Harris Hospital in 1946, and a creature from the planet Zog who took human form, then had a mastoidectomy operation before being beamed down to Earth, and was later buried in Oswald's grave in Fort Worth.

And lo and behold! The evidence of the medical file and the exhumation report prove my case! The medical file shows that Oswald was a shape-shifting lizard, and the exhumation report shows that he was also a creature from the planet Zog! That's two Oswalds: a shape-shifting lizard and a creature from the planet Zog!

Now, some cynics might object to this, on the grounds that the evidence can be explained perfectly well as applying to one human being: the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. They would say that I'm making it all up, creating a far-fetched fantasy to satisfy my paranoid view of the world, just like a 'Harvey and Lee' believer. But it's true!

On a serious note, the question I was asking was: where is the second medical file, the one for the second mastoidectomy operation?

So far, we have documentary evidence for one mastoidectomy operation, and one body that had undergone a mastoidectomy operation. If you want to claim that the only body is not that of the person to whom the only medical file applies, let's see the documentary evidence for the operation that was carried out on that body:

- What's the name of the hospital?
- What's the name of the surgeon?
- What was the date of the operation?

There's nothing. There isn't even a second body.

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

We've already seen the documentary evidence for both boys' mastoidectomies. We have the medical file from Harris Hospital for LEE, and the exhumation notes for HARVEY.

[Slaps forehead]

 

You should slap your forehead Jeremy... you fell right into that. Because what I said is true... we have evidence of mastoidectomies for both Oswalds. The medical records give surgery information for the one boy, and the exhumed body of the other boy had a mastoidectomy bone scar which proves he also had the surgery.

If these two boys weren't connected with each other, I'm sure you'd be satisfied that the evidence we have shows that both the two boys had indeed had the surgery. It's only because you believe that the two boys are one and the same that you are demanding from me hospital records for the exhumed boy to prove that he was a different person. But, you see, I am not limited to using hospital records to prove that they were two different boys. I can use any evidence I wish to prove it, as long as the evidence does indeed prove that there were two boys.

 

[Karl Hilliard]

Sorry if I have missed it along the way. What would have been the purpose [in the first place] of having created two Oswalds back then?

Would there then be a future in such a program these days?

[James Norwood]

56 minutes ago, Karl Hilliard said:

Sorry if I have missed it along the way. What would have been the purpose [in the first place] of having created two Oswalds back then?

Would there then be a future in such a program these days?

Karl,

It is important to keep in mind that the original purpose of the two Oswalds had nothing to do with the JFK assassination.  In the postwar years, the so-called Oswald Project (identified and documented by CIA paymaster James Wilcott) was to place a Russian-speaking asset in the Soviet Union during the Cold War. 

For more background, see the article "The Early Lives of Harvey and Lee," especially the text under the subheading of "Frank Wisner and World War II Refugees":
https://harveyandlee.net/Early/Early.html

The three principal forum critics who write screeds in opposition to the known facts about the two Oswalds rarely mention the overwhelming evidence from John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee or the extremely detailed articles at https://www.harveyandlee.net/

Why would the CIA have built the mission around an obscure teenager who never graduated from high school?  The answer is that he spoke fluent Russian.  I unfold the evidence for Oswald's Russian language proficiency in the following article:  https://www.harveyandlee.net/Russian.html

Thanks for your interest in this topic and for your participation on this thread.

James

Edited August 4, 2020 by James Norwood

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

James Norwood writes:

Quote

the so-called Oswald Project (identified and documented by CIA paymaster James Wilcott) was to place a Russian-speaking asset in the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

James Wilcott's phrase 'Oswald project' was appropriated by the 'Harvey and Lee' belief system and given a new meaning involving a long-term doppelganger scheme.

In his appearance before the HSCA, Wilcott explained what his 'Oswald project' involved:

Quote

I believe that Oswald was a double agent, was sent over to the Soviet Union to do intelligence work, that the defection was phoney and it was set up and that I believe that Marina Oswald was an agent that had been recruited sometime before and was waiting their in Tokyo for Lee Harvey Oswald.

Wilcott said and implied nothing about doppelgangers at all, let alone:

- that a long-term doppelganger project was set up involving two unrelated boys from different parts of the world who were chosen at a young age in the hope that they would turn out to look virtually identical a decade or more later;
- or that the boys did magically turn out to look virtually identical;
- or that each boy had a virtually identical mother named Marguerite Oswald;
- or that one of the boys had a 13-inch head;
- or that one of the boys followed the other around Dallas on the day of the assassination to frame the other for the murders of JFK and Tippit;
- or that both of the Oswald doppelgangers got themselves arrested in the Texas Theater and each told the cops that his name was Oswald, thereby giving the game away;
- or that one of the Oswald doppelgangers and one of the Marguerite doppelgangers disappeared from the face of the earth immediately after the assassination;
- or any of the other far-fetched speculation that makes up the 'Harvey and Lee' theory.

James Wilcott said nothing about any of that.

Wilcott certainly never claimed, as John Armstrong did, that one of the Oswald doppelgangers had undergone a mastoidectomy operation and that the other doppelganger was the one buried in Oswald's grave, despite knowing that this claim was untrue, the claim having been debunked by Oswald's exhumation two decades before Armstrong wrote his book.

Tracy Parnell has written an informative article about James Wilcott, which includes links to Wilcott's HSCA testimony in which Wilcott mentions the 'Oswald project' and explains what he meant by the term:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html

Here's Wilcott's testimony:

http://www.jfklancer.com/Wilcott.html

There's even less excuse for the 'Harvey and Lee' believers to misrepresent Wilcott when you consider that the above version of his HSCA testimony was prepared by the 'Harvey and Lee' belief system's Chief Evangelist, a Mr Hargrove (unless our Mr Hargrove is actually one item in a pair of doppelgangers).

Here's Wilcott's unpublished manuscript, 'The Kennedy Assassination':

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=260#relPageId=9

On pages 16 and 17, Wilcott writes:

Quote

Oswald was recruited from the military for the express purpose of becoming a double agent assignment to the USSR. It was said that they had some kind of special "handle" on him. Perhaps, went the speculation, they had discovered that he had murdered someone or commited [sic] some other serious crime, during a routine lie detector test. In any case it was a very risky assignment. CIA taught him Russian and it was said that he had been to the farm (CIA's agent training camp, Camp Peary, Va.) although probably not in one of the regular agent training programs. ...

It was said that they had many difficulties with Oswald, the exact nature of which has been forgotten. Critics said that it was a stupid project from the start. They should have known that the Soviets would never buy the story. He was a poor subject for such a deep cover operation. There were too many compromising facets to his background which would make it a difficult story to sell.

Two aspects of Wilcott's account specifically contradict 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine:

- He claims that Oswald was recruited while in the Marines during his late teens, not as a young boy as part of a long-term doppelganger scheme.

- He claims that Oswald was taught Russian while in the Marines. 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine, on the other hand, claims that the Oswald doppelganger who defected was a flawless, native speaker of Russian (or a very good speaker, or a moderately good speaker; they can't seem to agree), and certainly not a native English-speaking American who was taught Russian in the Marines.

In short, James Wilcott said nothing about doppelganger Oswalds, and specifically contradicted two other important elements of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine.

Quote

For more background, see the article "The Early Lives of Harvey and Lee," especially the text under the subheading of "Frank Wisner and World War II Refugees":

- https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2248-deceptions-and-errors-of-fact-the-early-lives-of-harvey-and-lee

- https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2250-deceptions-and-errors-of-fact-frank-wisner-and-world-war-ii-refugees

There's plenty more information about the 'Harvey and Lee' theory here: 

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

Edited August 5, 2020 by Jeremy Bojczuk

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

we have evidence of mastoidectomies for both Oswalds. The medical records give surgery information for the one boy, and the exhumed body of the other boy had a mastoidectomy bone scar which proves he also had the surgery.

What we actually have is this:

(a) Medical records for one mastoidectomy operation carried out on one person named Lee Harvey Oswald.

(b) One mastoidectomy defect on one exhumed body that had been buried under the name of Lee Harvey Oswald.

That's one operation, one defect, one body, and one name.

If, as Sandy speculates, items (a) and (b) refer to two different people, two important items of evidence are missing, namely:

1 - The body of Lee Harvey Oswald Doppelganger A, complete with mastoidectomy defect, the subject of the medical records in item (a).

2 - Medical records for a mastoidectomy operation carried out on Lee Harvey Oswald Doppelganger B, the exhumed body in item (b).

If Sandy's speculation is correct, we ought to have physical evidence for two operations, two defects, and two bodies. But we only have one of each.

Where are the missing medical records?

Where is the missing body?

[Jim Hargrove]

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

There's even less excuse for the 'Harvey and Lee' believers to misrepresent Wilcott when you consider that the above version of his HSCA testimony was prepared by the 'Harvey and Lee' belief system's Chief Evangelist, a Mr Hargrove (unless our Mr Hargrove is actually one item in a pair of doppelgangers).

I might be “actually one item in a pair of doppelgangers?”  What EXACTLY are you accusing me of?  I can assure you that I am posting here under my real name, and have included a real photo of myself as required by forum rules.  Accusing me of being here under a false identity clearly violates forum rules.  

Beyond that, you continuously misrepresent what people say, and then knock down the straw man argument you invented.  Show me where I ever claimed James Wilcott was aware of two LHOs or made any statement about two Oswalds?  Provide a specific link!

The evidence clearly shows there was an “Oswald Project.”  Mr. Wilcott referred to it, although he was also apparently unaware there were two LHOs.   Neither I nor Dr. Norwood has ever said James Wilcott knew about the two Oswalds.  This appears to be just your attempt to misrepresent our arguments in an effort to score points with casual readers.

I expect an explanation about why I may be “actually one item in a pair of doppelgangers.”

[James Norwood]

8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

James Norwood writes:

Quote

the so-called Oswald Project (identified and documented by CIA paymaster James Wilcott) was to place a Russian-speaking asset in the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Jeremy,

In your post, you fail to mention that the Wilcott testimony is only the tip of the iceberg for understanding the Oswald Project.  For example, there is overwhelming evidence that in the United States intelligence network the name Harvey Lee Oswald was being used for explicit reasons in contrast to the name of another man Lee Harvey Oswald.  In a conference presentation entitled “Oswald, Marine Corps Intelligence, and the Assault on the State Department," Professor Peter Dale Scott summarized the transposition of the names as follows:

“At least one of these G-2 records listed Oswald by a slightly different name.  This alternative name, which eventually was used by at least four different military intelligence sources, was ‘Harvey Lee Oswald.’   This ‘Harvey Lee Oswald’ reference is no accidental anomaly, but part of an organized pattern, widely dispersed, that suggests an official intelligence deception (and possible dual filing system).   Serial 02296-E of 27 Jun 60 is the earliest Harvey Lee Oswald reference we now possess of over two dozen, from the files of ONI, FBI, CIA, Army Intelligence, the Secret Service, the Mexican Secret Police (DFS), and the Dallas Police.  A consistent pattern of behavior in these agencies since the assassination has been the tendency to suppress references to ‘Harvey Lee Oswald,’ and replace them by the more standard ‘Lee Harvey Oswald.’”

From the precise period that Oswald was in the Soviet Union, references to Harvey Lee Oswald in intelligence files appear over two dozen times.  A host of intelligence agencies were using the name Harvey Lee Oswald, and the apparent “dual filing system” implied a distinction between two different men:  Harvey Lee Oswald and Lee Harvey Oswald.  For Scott, the use of the name Harvey Lee Oswald was “no accidental anomaly, but part of an organized pattern, widely dispersed, that suggests an official intelligence deception.”  A “consistent pattern” of suppressing the name Harvey Lee Oswald and replacing it with “Lee Harvey Oswald” followed the assassination.  This implies that school records, records from the Marines, Social Security records, and any other references to “Harvey Lee Oswald” were likely changed in the historical record.

In your post, you attempt to ridicule the notion of the doppelgänger.  But it is not so ridiculous when one looks closely at the documentary evidence.

The paper of Peter Dale Scott may be read at this URL:

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/S Disk/Scott Peter Dale/Item 02.pdf

In closing, I would ask you once again to refrain from casting aspersions on other forum members.  You can make your points without resorting to personal attack.  Please abide by forum policies.

James

 

Edited August 5, 2020 by James Norwood

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

I expect an explanation about why I may be “actually one item in a pair of doppelgangers.”

Seriously? Perhaps Jim can tell us how he managed to start from here:

Quote

There's even less excuse for the 'Harvey and Lee' believers to misrepresent Wilcott when you consider that the above version of his HSCA testimony was prepared by the 'Harvey and Lee' belief system's Chief Evangelist, a Mr Hargrove (unless our Mr Hargrove is actually one item in a pair of doppelgangers).

and end up here:

Quote

I can assure you that I am posting here under my real name, and have included a real photo of myself as required by forum rules.  Accusing me of being here under a false identity clearly violates forum rules.

There was no implication that Jim was "here under a false identity" or anything of the sort. 

The point I made was that using James Wilcott to support the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense can't be excused on the grounds of ignorance, since Wilcott's HSCA testimony was transcribed by Jim himself.

I wondered, in jest, whether the Jim Hargrove who transcribed the testimony was not the Jim Hargrove we all respect for his skeptical attitude to blatant nonsense, but a different, doppelganger Jim Hargrove, who was ignorant of the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense and thus wouldn't have been aware that Wilcott contradicted essential elements of the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy. It's a play on the doppelganger concept. Jim likes his doppelgangers.

I think Jim needs to get on the waiting list for a sense of humour transplant.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

James Norwood writes:

Quote

you fail to mention that the Wilcott testimony is only the tip of the iceberg for understanding the Oswald Project

That's because it isn't. That's why I didn't mention it.

Even if, as Wilcott claimed, there was an 'Oswald project', Wilcott himself defined the project in a way that precludes it being part of the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy. As I pointed out, the essence of the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy is a long-term doppelganger scheme involving two boys co-opted at a young age, one of them a native speaker of Russian.*

Wilcott specifically claimed that his 'Oswald project' began when Oswald was in the Marines, not several years earlier as prescribed by 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine.

Wilcott claimed that his 'Oswald project' required Oswald to have been taught Russian while he was in the Marines, again contrary to 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine, which requires the defector to have been a native speaker of Russian.*

Wilcott said nothing about a second Oswald. For Wilcott, there was just the one Oswald, a native English-speaking American who was recruited into a CIA false defector scheme in his late teens and was taught Russian while in the Marines.

The 'Harvey and Lee' believers took something that vaguely resembled the far-fetched scheme of their imaginations (CIA; defector), and misrepresented it by ignoring the parts that contradicted their pet theory (one person; native English-speaking American; recruited in his late teens; given Russian lessons).

Quote

In a conference presentation entitled “Oswald, Marine Corps Intelligence, and the Assault on the State Department," Professor Peter Dale Scott summarized the transposition of the names

And the passage quoted by James includes absolutely no mention at all of any doppelganger Oswalds, decade-long schemes involving unrelated boys from different parts of the world, or native speakers of Russian*, as prescribed by the 'Harvey and Lee' theory.

The unique selling point of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is that there was a long-term doppelganger scheme involving two unrelated boys who magically grew up to look virtually identical (plus all the other 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense I described in my earlier post).

If Oswald's name was consistently inverted in the documentary record, one explanation might be that in some instances one or another intelligence agency was doing so for nefarious reasons. But again, this does not imply that any of the 'Harvey and Lee' doppelganger nonsense isn't nonsense.

Inverting Oswald's name does not necessarily imply that he was two people; or that his mother was two people; or that the Oswald who defected was a Hungarian refugee or Russian war orphan or whatever other phantom the 'Harvey and Lee' believers conjure into existence next; or that the doppelganger who was buried in Oswald's grave was not the doppelganger who had undergone a mastoidectomy operation, thereby refuting the 'Harvey and Lee' theory two decades before the Harvey and Lee book was published.

In the same way, inverting Oswald's name is consistent with the idea that he was both a shape-shifting lizard and a creature from the planet Zog, but it doesn't necessarily imply that he was both a shape-shifting lizard and a creature from the planet Zog.

Quote

In your post, you attempt to ridicule the notion of the doppelgänger.  But it is not so ridiculous when one looks closely at the documentary evidence.

It is entirely ridiculous. A scheme that lasted a decade or more, involving strangers who turned out to look virtually identical, with virtually identical mothers, all done just to place a false defector in the Soviet Union so that he could overhear what was being said around him. It's tin-foil hat stuff: a preposterous and unnecessarily complex conspiracy to explain a body of facts that have a much simpler explanation. Tell that to an intelligent member of the public who doesn't know much about the JFK assassination, and he or she is likely to think you're a crackpot.

You get a gold star for the umlaut, though.

* Or possibly a merely competent but less than perfect speaker who was able to understand what was being said around him. The 'Harvey and Lee' brains trust doesn't appear to have reached a conclusion on that point of doctrine yet, after a couple of decades' deliberation.