Jump to content
The Education Forum

For Messrs. Hargrove, Zartman, Kowalski, et al...


Recommended Posts

Jeremy Bojczuk  was kind enough to remind certain folks on the EVIDENCE For H&L....thread earlier today that I’ve been asking a question for a week.  Thus far, to no avail, but also to no great surprise.  It is a frequent modus operandi.

Since they all continue to contribute to the pertinent thread where the question has been posted more than once, I thought I would address the question to them directly in this thread.  We’re all busy men, with many things to do.  Perhaps the question has simply escaped their otherwise hawk-eyed attention.

Messrs. Hargrove, Zartman, Kowalski (and I think Monsieur Butler too, to a lesser extent, but am uncertain) have all invoked much “woo woo” over Edwin Ekdahl’s purported, or likely, or possible involvement with intelligence, using his EBASCO employment as a cover. There’s been much palaver on the topic.

Just not a single reason to believe it true.

What evidence (needn’t even be proof, since the two words have different meanings) can any of the above muster for the assertion that Ekdahl did anything other than his traveling electrical consultant job for EBASCO?  As in, you know, intel?  And perhaps you could hazard a guess why he would take (a) Marguerite with him while doing this TOP SECRET work?

Surely between the H&L brain trust, there must be a single, tangible reason for so many members of the H&L squad spinning the same yarn?

What is it?  Actual evidence, please: no "woo woo."

And while I have your attention, why do you sterling photographic analysts have so hard a time differentiating Romulus from Remus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I never thought that I would ever achieve such "importance" in the JFK assassination discussion as to deserve being called out by name in a thread title. I suppose I should consider that something of a compliment, since I am a nobody. I'm not even a strong supporter of the h&l theory; I just can't dismiss it.

I only speak for myself, but the reason I personally have not responded to Robert and Jeremy's posts on the Harvey & Lee thread is because I have them on ignore. I have read many of their previous posts on the subject and engaged them briefly, and I have come to the conclusion that they have nothing useful to contribute to the conversation. Perhaps I am wrong on that. I trust the readers of this forum to decide for themselves.

I also find it somewhat arrogant when someone uses terms like "h&l squad" and "h&l brain trust" and "woo woo" (whatever that is supposed to mean) to describe others and their arguments and then expects those same people to respond to their every post as if it were an honest-to-goodness good faith debate.

The h&l opponents ask for evidence, but it is clear nothing will satisfy them. Any evidence that is presented to them is summarily rejected and immediately followed by the claim that the h&l supporters have not presented any evidence at all. Rinse. Repeat. I'm tempted to repeat my reasoning and the specific evidence that I find compelling here, but what's the point?

The h&l opponents here keep saying over and over and over again that there is no evidence for h&l and that h&l has been conclusively disproven long ago. Yet they just can not stand the idea that anyone, even a stupid, insignificant nobody such as myself, could possibly think otherwise. Even though they repeatedly state that h&l has been conclusively, absolutely discredited beyond any shadow of a doubt, they are here day after day continuously arguing against it as if it were their job. They are even driven to start new threads and call out their opponents by name all over a subject they repeatedly call ridiculous and conclusively disproven long ago. They demand debate from those they repeatedly mock and demand evidence that we all know they will dismiss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And @Jim Hargrove as soon as my sweet, sweet h&l cash comes in, I'll see about getting us some matching "H&L Squad" jackets, maybe with a tasteful little "woo woo" embroidered on the right breast. What do you think? We have to look good on bowling night.

 

Edited by Denny Zartman
More Adrian Zmed added
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that would be a big fat no from Mr. Zartman.

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

I'm not even a strong supporter of the h&l theory; I just can't dismiss it.

No, what you can't do is provide any basis to believe the "woo woo" being spun around the topic of Ekdahl.  Thanks for coming so close to admitting it.  You remember your "good work, Jim" comment when Mr. Hargrove posted a massaged version of what the documents actually reveal?  What, pray tell, was the "good work" based upon?

We're making some progress

Now that we've heard from "not even a strong supporter," perhaps we can hear from someone who is.

Who's next?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denny Zartman writes:

Quote

I'm not even a strong supporter of the h&l theory; I just can't dismiss it.

That is good to know, but it doesn't mean that Denny should not reply to Robert's perfectly reasonable question.

Quote

I have them on ignore

The digital equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la la" is a good way to insulate yourself from uncomfortable facts and opinions. It's a poor way to reach a proper judgement about contentious subjects.

Quote

The h&l opponents ask for evidence, but it is clear nothing will satisfy them.

Personally, there's plenty of evidence that would satisfy me. I'd guess the same goes for Robert, Tracy, Jonathan, and all the other members who are unsatisfied by the evidence that has been presented up to now.

When I discussed this with Denny a couple of weeks ago, I explained to him why the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is, in my opinion, dead and buried:

Quote

We know from innumerable threads on this forum and elsewhere that the 'Harvey and Lee' scheme didn't happen. Every element of the theory that has been examined in detail has been shown to be either poorly supported by the evidence or plainly contradicted by the evidence.

To illustrate my claim, I then gave Denny some links to threads on which particular 'Harvey and Lee' talking points had been examined in detail. Those talking points have been abandoned by 'Harvey and Lee' proponents. The proponents evidently accept that those elements of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory are either poorly supported by the evidence or plainly contradicted by the evidence.

Plenty of 'Harvey and Lee' talking points have been discussed, and most of them have been discussed over and over again. Hardly anyone has been persuaded by any of them. I told Denny, "If you or anyone else finds something the critics have missed, please mention it on the appropriate thread." As far as I can tell, Denny has not found anything that the critics have missed.

Following that, I showed Denny why the double-doppelganger scheme would never have been implemented. If the CIA (or whoever) wanted to produce a false defector who understood Russian and had a plausible American background, they had a far easier and more obvious solution than setting up a long-term double-doppelganger project. Again, Denny doesn't seem to have found anything that contradicts the argument I made, so I'd guess he agrees with me about that, at least.

To return to the Ekdahl question: if Denny thinks there may be something in the suggestion that Edwin Ekdahl had some sort of intelligence connection, that's fine with me. Plenty of people in the immediate post-war period had intelligence connections. Even if Ekdahl was one of them, that by itself wouldn't imply that he was playing a part in a ludicrously improbable top-secret double-doppelganger project.

I'm perfectly prepared to accept that Ekdahl had such a connection, if anyone can produce evidence that's strong enough to justify that claim. But, as Robert has been pointing out, the people who are making the claim haven't yet produced any evidence at all.

The claim is currently just speculation. It's not unreasonable to ask the 'Harvey and Lee' proponents to either produce some evidence or acknowledge that it is pure speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

The h&l opponents ask for evidence, but it is clear nothing will satisfy them. Any evidence that is presented to them is summarily rejected and immediately followed by the claim that the h&l supporters have not presented any evidence at all. Rinse. Repeat. I'm tempted to repeat my reasoning and the specific evidence that I find compelling here, but what's the point?

Ditto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I ask a question? Do the H&L theory supporters think either of both Harvey and Lee were involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a suggestion for those sweet jackets......Make them reversible. So you can wear either Harvey or Lee on the outside depending on what mood you are in that particular day, lol! 😂😂😂 I would proudly wear one of those! I have a question for the ones who ridicule the H&L supporters as they call us........how do you explain the fact that one Lee Harvey Oswald shot himself while in the marines but despite a pretty in depth autopsy that identified tiny moles on the body of the man shot by Ruby, there was no reporting of a gunshot wound or scar from this incident? The guy doing the otherwise thorough autopsy just decided this wound wasn't noteworthy enough to document? Please let me know if I have misstated anything. I do own a copy of Harvey And Lee which I have read but it has been awhile and it is a pretty massive book. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul Brancato, in the book Armstrong theorizes that Lee, the original Lee Harvey Oswald from birth, is a shooter on the 6th floor of the TSBD. He is wearing a white T shirt while Harvey on the 2nd floor lunchroom wears the long sleeve brownish shirt buttoned up about halfway with a white T underneath. He also subscribes to the theory that Lee is the shooter of Tippit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

I have a question for the ones who ridicule the H&L supporters as they call us.......

No “well, how-about-ism” here thanks.  Leads nowhere.

The topic of this thread is claims made about Edwin Ekdahl.  And is specifically addressed to those who made them.

Your observations - which have nothing to do with Ekdahl - would perhaps be better posted elsewhere.  Have your say, by all means.  Just not here.  

Ekdahl only please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

Paul Brancato, in the book Armstrong theorizes that Lee, the original Lee Harvey Oswald from birth, is a shooter on the 6th floor of the TSBD. He is wearing a white T shirt while Harvey on the 2nd floor lunchroom wears the long sleeve brownish shirt buttoned up about halfway with a white T underneath. He also subscribes to the theory that Lee is the shooter of Tippit.

Instead of being a shooter, he was a poser posing as if he was a shooter.  Gil Jesus in another thread just made the point that the Carcano found at the TSBD was not fired until the FBI test fired it.  I think I got that right.  Advise if not what Gil said.

Also a study of the witnesses on the 3rd, 4th, and fifth floor indicates the shooting occurred else where.  Only Harold Norman of "clack-clack" fame remained consistent is his testimony.  Most of the witnesses heard shooting from the west towards the grassy knoll and railroad bridge.  Two, Junior Jarman and Elsie Dorman heard shooting from the left or east.  Jarman's low and left shot could be the Dal-Tex.  Elsie"s left hand shot was from the east, the Court Records Building.

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...