1953-54: Harvey and Lee in Three Consecutive School Semesters

[Dawn Meredith]

On 8/10/2020 at 11:27 AM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

So, if the occasion warranted, such as writing a book, you’d be precise in your use of words.

But since you’re only riffing here for a bunch of non-book readers, it matter less.    

You seem to be saying that words change meaning depending on who reads them?

Got it.  Very gracious of you to admit that you have one level of literacy for one occasion, and an entirely different one for others.

When in fact the issue is that you cannot teach me (or anyone) what you cannot prove, or teach.  That’s gotta hurt.

No wonder you save such special venom for me.  Just a boy who won’t do as he’s told by teachers.  Who don’t know their own subject.

Noted.

Dude... you’re the one who uses words precisely or imprecisely depending on whether it’s for a book and just the yokels and rubes who read internet stuff.  By your own admission.

Wow.  What victory for you.

I’m sorry, but when was the last time you posted anything “strong and compelling?”  I don’t read all your stuff, admittedly, because it so rarely contains anything “strong and compelling.”  

Was it when you admitted that you believe there were second mastoid surgery records, despite the fact that nobody in the world had ever seen them, heard of them, or known anything about them?  You know: "just because they don’t exist, doesn’t mean they never did."

You know, like unicorns.

Oh I plan to.  No worries there, mate.

Very gracious of you to admit that when cornered,  the various members of the crack H&L squad are in regular contact with each other, plotting strategy for how to deal with upstarts who keep poking holes in your collective (yet evolving) delusion.  

But if you're all in tight communication, why does each of you wander off script so many times, contradicting each other, and sometimes even your own evidence.

Don't get me wrong; it's comical and enjoyed by many.

But how is it that you can conspire together and still not be on the same page?

All this freelancing must drive Jim and John nuts.

So RCD.  You have made it quite clear that you do not support the H&L position. I have a question.  The photos of "Harvey" and "Lee" do not look at all alike, to me. To what do you attribute this?  If not two different people, then what?  Thanks. Nice to see you round these parts. I am rarely on forums these days myself. 

Best,

Dawn

[Joe Bauer]

45 minutes ago, Dawn Meredith said:

So RCD.  You have made it quite clear that you do not support the H&L position. I have a question.  The photos of "Harvey" and "Lee" do not look at all alike, to me. To what do you attribute this?  If not two different people, then what?  Thanks. Nice to see you round these parts.

I am rarely on forums these days myself. 

Best,

Dawn

Dawn, that's for sure.

Haven't seen you on the forum anymore than "Dawn Wells" for the longest time.

Have you been stranded on an uncharted island like Mary Ann all this time?

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Dawn Meredith said:

So RCD.  You have made it quite clear that you do not support the H&L position. I have a question.  The photos of "Harvey" and "Lee" do not look at all alike, to me. To what do you attribute this?  If not two different people, then what?

I know this question was directed to RCD, but regarding photos that do not look alike, what if it's actually not attributable to... anything, other than the simple fact that one's appearance changes often, sometimes dramatically, over the course of a lifetime? To my eyes, there is one and only one person depicted in these photos: the one and only historical Lee Harvey Oswald.

[David G. Healy]

9 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

[...] To my eyes, there is one and only one person depicted in these photos: the one and only historical Lee Harvey Oswald.

well, of course! We should expect nothing else from the "LHO did it all by his lonesome" crowd. That script was written well before you showed here, btw.

Edited August 12, 2020 by David G. Healy

[David Josephs]

9 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I know this question was directed to RCD, but regarding photos that do not look alike, what if it's actually not attributable to... anything, other than the simple fact that one's appearance changes often, sometimes dramatically, over the course of a lifetime? To my eyes, there is one and only one person depicted in these photos: the one and only historical Lee Harvey Oswald.

I second that... good to hear from you Dawn....    So you're gonna believe your own lyin' eyes over Jon and RCD????

And yeah, all 18 year old's have a head 2x as large as it's supposed to be Jon... 

1 hour ago, Dawn Meredith said:

If not two different people, then what? 

[Jonathan Cohen]

17 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

well, of course! We should expect nothing else from the "LHO did it all by his lonesome" crowd. That script was written well before you showed here, btw.

You can expect whatever you like. But your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. I have never once said I believe "LHO did it all by his lonesome." In fact, I don't believe that at all. Indeed, a person can -- and many people on this forum do -- believe in Oswald's innocence of the assassination without subscribing to the absolutely idiotic theory espoused in H&L.

[Jonathan Cohen]

15 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Same person in all photos.

[David Josephs]

21 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Same person in all photos.

   

Jon...  pick a topic, research it, post your analysis....  or u just a critic of other's work?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

I can't believe anyone is still repeating Jack 'the moon landings were faked' White's long-debunked 13-inch head nonsense! Oswald did not have a 13-inch head. Details here:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1412-the-13-inch-head-explained-for-sandy

If the Oswald doppelgangers were genuinely distinct in appearance, and any apparent differences were not due to obvious factors such as different lighting conditions, poses, or quality of photographic reproduction, it should be possible to identify those differences consistently in the photographic record.

For example, one of the doppelgangers might have a more pointed chin and the other a more rounded chin. Or his eyebrows or mouth or ears might be longer or shorter or fatter or thinner than those of the other doppelganger. In each case, these differences would be visible consistently across many images. All the images of 'Harvey', for example, would show his wider mouth and thinner lips, or whatever features contrasted with those of 'Lee'.

Would a 'Harvey and Lee' believer care to enlighten us as to the physical differences between the doppelgangers? Once you've done that, take Jack 'no planes hit the World Trade Center' White's old montage of 70-odd mugshots and tell us which images are of which doppelganger. If there are differences, those differences will be consistent across the photographic record. After all, the whole point of Jack 'I helped to think up the Harvey and Lee nonsense' White's montage was to show that there were two Oswalds.

Alternatively, if you aren't able to point out any consistent differences in the photographs of 'Harvey' and 'Lee', what do you think are the odds that two unrelated boys from different parts of the world, chosen at a young age in the hope that they would end up looking identical when they grew up, did indeed turn out to look identical?

Lee Harvey Oswald was one real person and not a pair of imaginary doppelgangers, wasn't he?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Oswald did not have a 13-inch head.

There are no words for someone still promoting that nonsense. Or maybe there are, but I don't want to be banned.

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1412-the-13-inch-head-explained-for-sandy

 

What does he mean "explained for Sandy?" I'm the one who posted these 12" and 13" noggins:

 

 

 

 

....and others to prove there was no alteration. (BTW did you recognize Paul Newman in two of these?)

Well, okay, I admit that I studied the photo/drawing and pondered over it for a while before I figured that there might have been a portable booth where the subject stands in front of the wall at a line on the floor, rather than up against the wall. And that the camera is mounted on a fixed post but is raised or lowered to adjust for the height of the subject, so the lens is at approximately the height of the eyes or nose. This would result in the height chart giving the correct reading, but standing away from the wall would cause the ruler to appear shortened below the plane of the lens center due to perspective. Which would make the head measure longer than it really is.

Anyway, at least I have an open mind and would have considered the possibility of alteration, especially considering that the picture looks like a fine pencil drawing.

 

Edited August 14, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[David G. Healy]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

There are no words for someone still promoting that nonsense. Or maybe there are, but I don't want to be banned.

funny, many feel that way concerning the 1964 Warren Commission Report conclusions. (emphasis mine.)

[Sandy Larsen]

[deleted]

Edited August 14, 2020 by Sandy Larsen