Jeremy Bojczuk Posted August 6, 2020 Share Posted August 6, 2020 Let's recap, and see if we can prise answers from the 'Harvey and Lee' believers to the latest bunch of questions that they have avoided answering. James Wilcott James Wilcott's 'Oswald project' contradicts three items of 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine: - He implied that Oswald was one person. 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine claims that Oswald was a pair of doppelgangers. - He claimed that his 'Oswald project' began when Oswald was in the Marines. 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine claims that the doppelganger scheme began much earlier, several years before Oswald entered the Marines. - He claimed that Oswald was taught Russian while in the Marines. 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine claims that the Oswald who spoke Russian (either flawlessly or merely well enough to understand what was being said around him, depending on the state of the theory on any particular day) was a native speaker. How would the believers resolve these contradictions? Oswald's Mastoidectomy We have one set of medical records, one exhumed body, and one mastoidectomy defect. Sandy claims that these refer to two people, who each underwent a mastoidectomy operation. In that case, we should have two sets of medical records and two bodies showing two mastoidectomy defects. But we don't. - Where is the missing set of medical records? - Where is the missing body with its mastoidectomy defect? Alternatively, if Sandy is mistaken and these items of evidence actually refer to one person, how do the believers resolve the problem of the wrong doppelganger being buried in Oswald's grave? Quote It was Lee Oswald who had the mastoidectomy operation ... Harvey Oswald's body ... was buried in Rose Hill Cemetery ... The remains examined by Dr Norton were of Harvey Oswald. ... This man was not Lee Oswald. (John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, pp.946-7; bold-face in the original) Also, why did John Armstrong mislead his readers by not mentioning in his book the existence of the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave, a fact that was confirmed by reputable scientists and that debunked Armstrong's theory two decades before his book was published? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now