Jeremy Bojczuk Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 Jim also writes that I Quote must declare that only the mastoidectomy is relevant to the case of two Oswalds Jim has misunderstood what I've been saying. Different aspects of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory fail for different reasons, but the mastoidectomy is noteworthy for two things. Firstly, the fact that the body in Oswald's grave had undergone a mastoidectomy operation proves that the theory John Armstrong put forward in Harvey and Lee is wrong. The biographies of Armstrong's two fictional characters are a central part of his theory. He claimed specifically that the body in the grave was not that of the imaginary doppelganger who had undergone the operation. But the exhumation report showed that the body in the grave had in fact undergone the operation. Armstrong was wrong. Secondly, it appears to show that Armstrong was dishonest. He knew that his fictional biographies were wrong, because in his book he cited the scientists' report of the exhumation. But he went ahead and included the biographies in his book anyway. Not only did he claim to be true something he knew to be false, but he failed even to mention the existence of the mastoidectomy defect, a crucial fact that disproved his theory. By doing so, he misled his readers. Armstrong's apparent dishonesty leads to two questions that have been following Jim from thread to thread, and which he has avoided answering many times: Since Armstrong knew about the defect, he must have misled his readers deliberately. Would Jim agree that this shows Armstrong to be dishonest? If not, what alternative explanation can Jim put forward for Armstrong's behaviour? 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