Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Far-Reaching Influence of “Harvey and Lee”


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The LHO who attended the entire 1953 fall semester at Beauregard was clearly a part-time student, taking just a couple of courses.  Why?  Because his pattern of school truancy in New York City had landed him in the clutches of the NYC court system, threatening to expose the entire Oswald project.

Jim,

Thanks for your careful breakdown of the attendance data above.

One of the most fascinating details about the part-time student in New York comes from an interview of psychiatrist Dr. Milton Kurian, who spoke with a boy named Lee Harvey Oswald in 1953.  In the interview, Dr. Kurian recalled the child telling him that "he never went to school but, on occasion, his brother would substitute for him and take his place in school."  Of course, Oswald's two brothers were far too old to have been the substitute; it had to have been a much younger boy who was the tag-team partner.  The entirety of Dr. Kurian's interview may be viewed within the article "The Early Lives of Harvey and Lee" at this site: https://harveyandlee.net/Early/Early.html

During the interview, Dr. Kurian recalled that the boy in the room answered to the name of "Harvey."  Researcher Steve Thomas has documented on this forum 44 instances when Oswald's name appears as "Harvey Lee Oswald."

I had difficulty in understanding the gist of Aldin's critique because the numbers he circled are so fuzzy on the internet document.  But, I admired the survey he has prepared for another thread, and I have cast my vote!

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 229
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

13 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Sandy,

Clifton Shasteen's testimony raises the possibility that both Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine were acquainted with a second "Oswald." 

According to Shasteen, the "Oswald" he knew regularly DROVE to Shasteen's barber shop in a 1955 green and white Chevy station wagon (undoubtedly this one linked below),, yet Marina insisted that her husband NEVER drove anywhere except when practicing with Ruth Paine. 

https://wtvr.com/2016/07/15/lee-harvey-oswald-car/

This LHO was accompanied on at least two occasions by a 14-year old boy, but no such boy was ever in the company of our "Oswald" in Dallas, let alone identified and questioned. 

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shasteen.htm

Further:

Gertrude Hunter and Edith Whitworth were adamant (they never backed down) that Marina and two children had been to their Furniture Mart in Irving in the company of a man in the first week of November of 1963.This man drove the family there in a two-toned Ford.  Gertrude Hunter provided details about seeing Marina around town a number of times before the visit to the Furniture Mart - she even correctly described the rose jacket Marina wore one time!

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you saw Mrs. Oswald, or who you think was Mrs. Oswald, in ,the Station there that day before you saw her in the Furniture Mart; is that right?
Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, when you saw her in the Furniture Mart, did you recognize her?
Mrs. HUNTER. No; it didn't dawn on me I didn't think a thing in the world about it.
Mrs. OSWALD. Excuse me, do you remember how I was dressed and was I pregnant at that time?
Mrs. HUNTER. Yes.
*Mrs. OSWALD. And what did I have on?
Mrs. HUNTER. All I know is you had on a jacket.
*Mrs. OSWALD. What color?
Mrs. HUNTER. It was pretty chilly--it was a rose or more of a--it wasn't red.
Mrs. OSWALD. Was it blue?
Mrs. HUNTER. It was more of a rose.
*Mrs. OSWALD. I had a rose short one
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you testified before you had seen Mrs. Oswald several times.
Mrs. HUNTER. Yes; but I didn't know who she was.
Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us about the other times you saw her.
Mrs. HUNTER. I have seen her in Minyards Grocery Store.
Mr. LIEBELER. What is that?
Mr. McKENZIE. [Spelling] M-i-n-y-a-r-d-s.
Mr. LIEBELER. Where is that?
Mrs. HUNTER. On Irving Boulevard.
*Mrs. OSWALD. Grocery store?
Mrs. HUNTER. And this drive-in grocery that I was talking about, if you remember there I think I had seen her there.

 

 While it may seem that this man must have been our "Oswald" at the Irving Furniture Mart the first week in November, in fact, the Warren Commission simply could not place him there.

Why not?

Because they had irrefutable evidence that our "Oswald" was indeed at work at the TSBD at that very time!

And since they wanted no part of a second LHO, they were forced to conclude, in spite of the convincing testimony, that Whitworth and Hunter were (somehow) wrong. Wesley Liebeler even went so far as to arrange an actual visit to the Furniture Mart. He nearly succeeded in getting Marina to deny ever having been there, until she said added that she didn't know whether she'd been there!

Mr. LIEBELER. You are now standing directly in front of the store at 149 East Irving Boulevard, aren't you?
*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you are sure you have never been here before?
*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I have never been here before.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have anything to add, Mr. McKenzie?
Mr. McKENZIE. No.
*Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know if I were inside this store, but I don't recall it now.
Mr. LIEBELER. You don't recognize this store as a place you have ever been before?
*Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. LIEBELER. I have no further questions, and this will adjourn the deposition."

With that, Liebeler (figuratively) threw in the towel. 

To sum up, there are strong hints in the testimony of at least three Irving witnesses that a second LHO was driving around Irving in the company of Marina, and very possibly in Ruth Paine's automobile.

The fact that the Warren Commission and FBI were unable to resolve these contradictions does not inspire confidence in the "official" narrative. 

 

 

"

Paul,

There was also the comment by Marina saying she had 2 husbands.  Some take this is just a psychological reference to two natures of her husband Lee Harvey Oswald.  I take it she was actually speaking about 2 people, Harvey and Lee.  The incident you mention and others brings one to the conclusion that Marina Oswald knew of the double Oswald usage by the CIA.  It's my opinion that she lived with each alternatively.   

If what you say is true then Ruth Paine did also.  Ruth Paine, IMO, was the CIA handler (or keeper) for the double agent, Marina Oswald.  But, she may have been a triple agent.  I base that on what she did after Harvey died. 

However, there is a part of me that says the Russians may have been aware of the Oswald Project as early as the 1940s.  Someone knew and that information and it came out in the Tippit telephone call in November. 1963. 

There are many odd occurrences concerning the Dynamic Duo.  Generally, folks overlook those things.  It is speculative, or not evidentiary enough, or it does not fit with the evidence they have accumulated, or the theory they are working out of at that time.  There are odd things that can throw a person's views off, and sometimes to a point of 180 degree turn, if true.

What if the following was true?:

harvey-in-handcuffs-suicide-scar-maybe-a    

Here is a photo of Harvey's suicide scar.  Or, a scar which very closely fits the definition of his suicide scar.  The problem is it is on the wrong arm.  According to the Russian medical reports the scar should be on his left wrist.  Harvey's autopsy doesn't mention this scar on the right wrist.  This suicide scar this (?) is on his right wrist.  The photo is not reversed.  We can see Harvey's left ear in the photo (it is distinctive).  There is no mention of cutting both wrists in the Russian reports.

If this was really Harvey showing his suicide scar as a means of identification to his superiors saying I am Harvey and not Lee who has been taken to the jail.  It could be because some of his handlers suffered from the inability to adequately see the differences in faces.  Many people have this problem and there are probably more than you think. 

So, if this was true would it change your beliefs?  For folks on the Forum probably not.  This may be unfair, but from what I have seen on the forum a lot of people would simply ignore this because it doesn't fit with what they know and it is so outlandish that it is easy to dismiss. 

I'll probably get a couple of good kicks for this, but I see this kind of thing here.  

 

  

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Aldin Lee said:

Here's a blow up of both of the above transcripts that purportedly help to 'PROVE' the beginnings of a multi year sinister plan by the CIA (I suppose) to create a double (or twin) for a future operative to carry out an assassination of a future U.S. president, who by the Fall of '53 hadn't even been a U.S. senator for a year

 

You're the only one here saying that the supposed purpose of the Oswald Project was to assassinate President Kennedy. None of us here believe anything like that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
14 hours ago, Aldin Lee said:

Here's a blow up of both of the above transcripts that purportedly help to 'PROVE' the beginnings of a multi year sinister plan by the CIA (I suppose) to create a double (or twin) for a future operative to carry out an assassination of a future U.S. president, who by the Fall of '53 hadn't even been a U.S. senator for a year

 

You're the only one here saying that the supposed purpose of the Oswald Project was to assassinate President Kennedy. None of us here believe anything like that.

Sandy,

You raise an absolutely essential point here.  People need to understand that the idea of the two Oswalds originally had nothing to do with JFK, but rather with a Cold War project to send a Russian-speaking asset into the Soviet Union.  A legend had to be created to fool the KGB, and it succeeded insofar as Oswald was able to reside in the Soviet Union and bring back intelligence after a two-and-a-half-year stay. 

The second period of creating the Oswald legend began after the Cuban Missile Crisis when evidence begins to point to Oswald being groomed as the scapegoat in the carefully planned assassination of President Kennedy.  One of the key figures to begin to uncover this evidence was New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison.

I have attempted to unfold the different evidentiary periods succinctly in my article "Lee Harvey Oswald: The Legend and the Truth”:  https://harveyandlee.net/J_Norwood/Legend.html

 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, James Norwood said:

I had difficulty in understanding the gist of Aldin's critique because the numbers he circled are so fuzzy on the internet document.  But, I admired the survey he has prepared for another thread, and I have cast my vote!

 

James,

I believe I understand Aldin's critique. It's pretty simple.

First, recall that the Beauregard record shows LEE attending the spring semester of 1954 (of the 1953/54 school year), and the full school year of 1954/55. There is nothing unusual with that part of the record.

The problem is with the fall semester of 1953. (Of the 1953/54 school year.) That is the semester that LEE was in NYC attending Public School 44. And yet we see an Oswald attending Beauregard that semester. Obviously that has to be HARVEY.

Aldin points out that the P.S. 44 record shows that Oswald was discharged on 1/13/54, and the Beauregard record shows that he was (originally) admitted on that very same date. That would be the very first day of the spring 1954 semester. Aldin doesn't seem to realize that that is precisely what we believe occurred with LEE. And that it doesn't explain how LEE was attending the semester prior to that, which is what the Beauregard record shows.

Of course, we explain it by saying it was HARVEY who was attending Beauregard that semester.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2020 at 3:33 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

James DiEugenio writes:

The point I've been making is slightly different. It's that the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense has the potential to be harmful.

At the moment, the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense is very much a minority point of view, despite its heavy promotion by a small number of propagandists. But imagine what might happen if a sufficient number of gullible newcomers got the impression that Armstrong and White's preposterous long-term doppelganger scheme was part of the standard interpretation of the assassination. Even worse, imagine what would happen if Hargrove and Armstrong ever got their movie deal (if that's what it is they are working towards), and the general public started to become aware of the notion that there were two Oswalds and two Marguerites and all the associated craziness.

If enough recognition of the 'Harvey and Lee' crackpottery were to build up beyond specialist JFK assassination circles, the media would be able to use it to portray all critics of the lone-nut theory as a bunch of crackpots.

That's their preferred method of misleading the general public and avoiding discussion of the evidence, as Oliver Stone knows. Don't listen to him, he's a 'conspiracy theorist'! You know, like those people who think the world is run by a top-secret cabal of shape-shifting lizards! That's what all those JFK people are like! The 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense belongs with the lizard illuminati, but rational criticism doesn't.

Posner served the interests of power in a different way, by providing the media with an allegedly authoritative source to refer to, again so that the media could keep any discussion of the evidence to a minimum.

The real danger with all the tin-foil-hat stuff that the JFK assassination attracts (and the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense isn't the worst example) is that it is liable to prevent a genuine resolution of the case. Without the support of the general public, the case will not get resolved.

 

There's a huge flaw in your arguments. You assume that the Harvey & Lee theory is wrong.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

James,

I believe I understand Aldin's critique. It's pretty simple.

First, recall that the Beauregard record shows LEE attending the spring semester of 1954 (of the 1953/54 school year), and the full school year of 1954/55. There is nothing unusual with that part of the record.

The problem is with the fall semester of 1953. (Of the 1953/54 school year.) That is the semester that LEE was in NYC attending Public School 44. And yet we see an Oswald attending Beauregard that semester. Obviously that has to be HARVEY.

Aldin points out that the P.S. 44 record shows that Oswald was discharged on 1/13/54, and the Beauregard record shows that he was (originally) admitted on that very same date. That would be the very first day of the spring 1954 semester. Aldin doesn't seem to realize that that is precisely what we believe occurred with LEE. And that it doesn't explain how LEE was attending the semester prior to that, which is what the Beauregard record shows.

Of course, we explain it by saying it was HARVEY who was attending Beauregard that semester.

 

I'm sorry to have to reply that, No, you don't at all understand the critique.  The pupil's transcript shown for Beauregard in NO WAY indicates attendance of any kind before January, 13, 1954. 

Sandy, perhaps in your case, you were so bamboozled early on by others' misrepresentation of the evidence, that you can't even now read a simple school transcript.  If you, and James, were both in a class for reading/interpreting documents, your transcripts should show that you both failed; albeit, I suspect that James is actually disingenuous in his wildly delusional assertions (continually promoting his work) . . . suffering from the same attention/accreditation needs that drove Oswald to (I am coming more and more to believe) make an impetuous decision sometime on Thursday, November 21, 1963.  

Note that, I have virtually no trust in government wherein there lies opportunities for a person(s) (of any stripe) to make money or gain/keep the trappings of power.  There are no more than a handful (if fewer) politicians, anywhere, in the U.S. whom I don't detest, let alone respect, and forget admire.  Does the CIA have a despicable history, yes.  Does the United States have a highly tainted history; most certainly.  Could a very, very, small number of persons within the CIA have conspired to get rid of Kennedy for their own personal gains, most certainly.  Did they?  That has yet to be convincingly asserted, despite trotting out all of the unscrupulous characters and the political/corruption motivations present at the time.   

There are just as many opportunities in the private sector for abuse of the public's faith. 

Laughingly, I think, that the evil which lurks in those who wish to use the power of government for their own ends (no matter the magnitude of tragic consequences to others) does not, in the U.S., need to be manifested secretly.  For instance, gravely more consequential results (than those which followed the '63 assassination) came out of a quite openly abuse of power, misuse of the U.S. armed forces for personal ends, under the last Bush administration.  

I can point to abuse (pure waste) of several billions in taxpayer dollars going on right now, and there isn't a politician (or press person) willing to speak up.  The abuse is so laughingly obvious, but ignorance, fear, indifference, and a very poorly constructed (archaic) political system, all allow the pilfering of public dollars in the U.S. far more so than in any other highly developed nation. 

Sorry, if the last part trailed too far off subject.  

    

Edited by Aldin Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2020 at 1:45 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

I just made public a vastly expanded new edition of the “Marine Corps and the Soviet Union” page on HarveyandLee.net.  John A. has been working on the new material for months.  The page also features the “Application for Enlistment and Individual Data Card” brought to the attention of JFK researchers just days ago by Dr. James Norwood.

Here’s the direct link to the page:

Marine Corps and the Soviet Union

Jim,

The Marine Corps and Soviet Union essay is a great, new contribution to your website.

I was especially interested in the human element of the story of Oswald in the Marines.  There is exceptional documentation placing the two Oswalds in different locations at the same times.  But it is the testimony of the Marines who clearly remembered two different people that I find most compelling.

Of course, there are many, many other topics to discuss in this outstanding new essay.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, James Norwood said:

Jim,

The Marine Corps and Soviet Union essay is a great, new contribution to your website.

I was especially interested in the human element of the story of Oswald in the Marines.  There is exceptional documentation placing the two Oswalds in different locations at the same times.  But it is the testimony of the Marines who clearly remembered two different people that I find most compelling.

Of course, there are many, many other topics to discuss in this outstanding new essay.

James

John Armstrong will be on Black Op Radio in about an hour (5 PM Pacific) talking about the new Marine page.  Oops, I mean 6 pm Pacific.

Edited by Jim Hargrove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Has any Harvey-And-Lee theorist tried to explain the mole under Marina Oswald's eye in all of her photos?

Micah,

Are you referring to the mole of Marguerite Oswald?  If so, that has been discussed as a recurring physical trait of the Marguerite imposter.

See this article and scroll down the page to the last major batch of photos of Marguerite: https://harveyandlee.net/Moms/Moms.html

James Edited by James Norwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, James Norwood said:

Micah,

Are you referring to the mole of Marguerite Oswald?  If so, that has been discussed as a recurring physical trait of the Marguerite imposter.

James

 

Yea, I edited the mistake. Photos of Marguerite through all her life show a mole under her eye. I don't see how that fits with the theory that the later photos are of an impersonator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...