Which came first, the bus or the Rambler?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

Nothing could be clearer than the fact that "Lee Harvey Oswald" and the entire JFK assassination has all the earmarks of an intelligence operation.

I'd  agree that Oswald appears to have had connections with one or more US intelligence agencies, and that this connection may well have been utilised in the JFK assassination. I'd also agree that Oswald was probably impersonated in the run-up to the assassination.

But none of those things demand the use of doppelgangers, do they? I presume even Jim accepts that it is not necessary to use doppelgangers in order to impersonate someone. Will he have the honesty to admit that much?

He probably won't, because once he admits that doppelgangers aren't necessary, his whole fantastical claim collapses.

If doppelgangers aren't necessary to impersonate someone in the real world, it certainly wouldn't be necessary to use two pairs of them in a fictional world when a plausible alternative would have existed.

Let's go over Jim's reasons for the use of doppelgangers:

• Oswald had intelligence connections - does not require the use of doppelgangers.
• Intelligence agencies were behind the JFK assassination - does not require the use of doppelgangers.
• Oswald was impersonated in the run-up to the assassination - does not require the use of doppelgangers. 

Why would anyone set up a long-term double-doppelganger scheme when there was no need to do so, Jim?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim continues:

Quote

Hypothetical questions about the CIA's "thinking" at the time are just a distraction.

No, they are central to Jim's theory. He is claiming that the CIA set up a long-term project involving two pairs of doppelgangers, in order to produce a false defector with an American background who could understand Russian. I've pointed out that they could have achieved this goal using a far simpler method: recruit a genuine American, and get him to learn Russian.

What Jim needs to do is tell us why anyone in their right mind would have set up something as complex and unnecessary as a long-term double-doppelganger project when a far simpler alternative was available.

Jim is claiming that the CIA did something that no-one would have done, and he is unable to explain why they did it. Why would they have made the irrational decision to use two pairs of doppelgangers when there was no need to do so?

Quote

With all his usual insults, Jerry Bojczuk continues to insist there was no reason for the CIA to pick a candidate who already understood the Russian language for a long-term project to prepare him to "defect" to the Soviet Union.

Correct, provided you fill in the rest of the nonsensical claim. There was no reason to pick two people when one would do.

There was no reason to pick one American boy (for his genuine American background) and one Hungarian boy (for his partial knowledge of Russian), and hope that when they grew up they would turn out to look identical, and pick two mothers for the two boys, and maintain these two households for a decade or more, when all they had to do was pick one American adult with a genuine American background and get him to learn Russian.

Why would they go for the complicated solution when a far simpler solution was available?

Edited May 25, 2022 by Jeremy Bojczuk
Corrected a typo

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

It's difficult to get a straight answer out of Jim when he's on the ropes, ins't it?

I invite everyone to compare his non-answers to the questions I asked:

• Does Jim accept that someone can be impersonated without the use of doppelgangers?
• What were the reasons for setting up a complex long-term impersonation project involving two pairs of doppelgangers when there was no need to do so?

To the first question, "yes", "no" or "I don't know" would be acceptable, honest answers. The only reasonable answer would be: "no, of course doppelgangers aren't necessary".

Jim's repeated refusal to answer this question shows that he agrees with the rest of us that impersonating someone does not require the use of doppelgangers.

To the second question, an acceptable answer would involve a statement like: "I can't think of a reason for using two pairs of doppelgangers when there was no need to do so". Or maybe: "I can think of a reason why those masterminds would have set up such an absurdly complex scheme, and I will now give you that reason".

Again, Jim's repeated refusal to give a straight answer, not just in this thread but in several others over the past year or two, shows that no good reason existed.

Jim's preposterously complex long-term double-doppelganger project could never have been implemented.

[Jim Hargrove]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I'd  agree that Oswald appears to have had connections with one or more US intelligence agencies, and that this connection may well have been utilised in the JFK assassination. I'd also agree that Oswald was probably impersonated in the run-up to the assassination.

Wow, if Jeremy Bojczuk ever made these concessions before, I must have missed it.  It is amazing to me that we can agree that, in Jeremy's words, “Oswald appears to have had connections with one or more US intelligence agencies, and that this connection may well have been utilised in the JFK assassination,” and that “Oswald was probably impersonated in the run-up to the assassination.”  

I would state these facts with a little more certainty, but this strikes me as real progress and is, frankly, more important to me than the question of how long the Oswald impersonations existed. 

It’s just that the EVIDENCE shows a long term impersonation dating back to a decade or so before the JFK assassination. When I bring up evidence for this, Mr. Bojczuk simply claims it has all been discussed before and then provides links to, mostly, Greg Parker’s website, claiming all has been debunked there.

But the evidence hasn’t been debunked at Parker’s site or here or anywhere else.  Ever.  If you don’t believe it, go to the links Mr. B. provides, read them, and come back here and list their arguments.  You will soon see that neither Greg Parker nor anyone else has debunked the basic facts that John A. discovered. I will continue to post highlights of the evidence for two Oswalds dating back to the 1950s here until someone debunks it here or I’m asked to stop by Ed Forum administrators.

If Mr. Bojczuk can debunk this evidence, why wouldn’t he do it here, instead of just claiming someone else has done it for him.  No one else has.

And it would be nice if Mr. Bojczuk at least understood the evidence he is trying so hard to debunk.  When he writes that I am “claiming that the CIA set up a long-term project involving two pairs of doppelgangers,” he fails to acknowledge that the evidence shows the impersonation preceded the formal creation of the CIA.  Personnel at the CIA merely perpetuated it for the Russian “defection” and other intelligence operations and covered up the program’s participation in the JFK assassination.

The claim that it is impossible to determine how children will appear as they grow up is incorrect.  For example, take a look at photographs or male movie stars when they were young.  It is quite an easy matter to see which child became which adult actor simply by comparing the pictures.  As Laura Kittrell told Gaeton Fonzi, the two Oswalds “looked the same… the same general outline and coloring and build….”

[Jim Hargrove]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

What Jim needs to do is tell us why anyone in their right mind would have set up something as complex and unnecessary as a long-term double-doppelganger project when a far simpler alternative was available.

“Right mind… ” SERIOUSLY?

I brought up the CIA’s MKULTRA project on the previous page to point out how ridiculous it is to try to analyze the thought processes of members of American Intel who established and maintained the Oswald project.  The people who tortured and poisoned so many Americans clearly didn’t think like us. To speculate on their motives to establish a long-term impersonation, beyond the obvious advantages of total deniability, seems pointless.  But total deniability was useful throughout the existence of the Oswald project.  To pick just one example, LHO couldn’t have been at Bolton Ford because he was Russia at the time.  Perfect.

Finally,  as I’ve said before, the use of lookalikes and impostors is common in spycraft. Antonio and Patricio DeLaGuardia, top spies for Cuba, were twin brothers.  Starting in the 1950s, Russian spy Konon Molody assumed the identity of Gordon Lonsdale, after being schooled in Berkley to learn English and American customs.  Starting in the 1980s, Canadian Michael Ross married an Israeli woman, joined the Mossad, and assumed at least six different identities, one lasting seven years, so he could gather intelligence.  Even Mata Hari was said to have used a stage double so she could do other things.  There are other examples.

[Jim Hargrove]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

It's difficult to get a straight answer out of Jim when he's on the ropes, ins't it?

Hey, I’m not the one making all the concessions you made on the first article on this page.  

And just to let you know, I’m going to continue posting H&L evidence right here until someone debunks it right here or Ed Forum administrators tell me to stop. Posting hundreds of links to other sites and claiming it has all been debunked there won’t work.  Everyone makes mistakes from time to time, but very little of John A’s basic research has ever been debunked, despite your claims otherwise.
 

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Hey, I’m not the one making all the concessions you made on the first article on this page.  

And just to let you know, I’m going to continue posting H&L evidence right here until someone debunks it right here or Ed Forum administrators tell me to stop. Posting hundreds of links to other sites and claiming it has all been debunked there won’t work.  Everyone makes mistakes from time to time, but very little of John A’s basic research has ever been debunked, despite your claims otherwise.

You consider a "concession" to be an acknowledgement that something may be within the realm of possibility -- ie, the one and only historical Lee Oswald having been impersonated and/or having some kind of connection to a government agency? Just because something may be possible doesn't mean it actually happened! And give us a break regarding Armstrong's "research" having been debunked. It has been absolutely torn to shreds by numerous respected researchers, dating back more than 20 years. Your posting of the same listicles over and over and over again will never change that.

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Quote

Jim Hargrove writes:

Will Mr. Bojczuk explain how this Oswald learned Russian, or will he merely post a few links and say it is all solved there, and continue with his insults?

10 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

...here are a couple of links which debunk this element of the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy:

• https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2313-oswald-and-the-russian-language
• http://www.jfkconversations.com/lee-oswald-russian-language

 

LOL... Bingo Jim! You nailed it!

 

Edit: To his credit, Jeremy seems now to be laying off the ad hominem attacks. Good for him!

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Why would anyone set up a long-term double-doppelganger scheme when there was no need to do so, Jim?

 

Why do you think the CIA  had no interest in any doppelganger schemes? What makes you the authority on that?

I'll bet that, had the illegal and unethical MK-Ultra schemes not been exposed, you would be claiming them to be "tin-foil-hat wearing" material that should be ignored.

I'll bet that, had the domestic terrorism plans of Operation Northwoods not been exposed, you would be claiming them to be "tin-foil-hat wearing" material that should be ignored.

Thank goodness we have Jim Hargrove to continue gathering and exposing evidence for the CIA's Oswald Project doppelganger scheme which clearly took place.

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Armstrong's "research" .... has been absolutely torn to shreds by numerous respected researchers, dating back more than 20 years.

 

Johnathan is making that up. Shame on him.

We've had numerous H&L threads on this forum since I joined several years ago and I don't recall any debunking of what Jim H. has posted. And I was skeptical of the H&L theory early on.

Everybody makes mistakes and it probably has been pointed out where Jim H. or John Armstrong has made a mistake. (I know I've made my own.) But almost everything that Jim has posted still stands.

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

Wow, if Jeremy Bojczuk ever made these concessions before, I must have missed it.

Yes, you did miss it. I have long considered that Oswald was probably impersonated (see here) and probably had connections to one or more US intelligence agencies (see here). As far as I can tell, that view is very common among critics of the lone-gunman theory.

The only lone-gunman advocate that I'm aware of who actively questions Jim's far-fetched double-doppelganger nonsense is Tracy Parnell. I assume Tracy doesn't agree with me that Oswald probably was impersonated or probably had intelligence connections.

But almost everyone who thinks that Jim's double-doppelganger theory is nonsense also thinks that the lone-gunman theory is nonsense. The double-doppelganger theory is not necessary to explain the assassination as a conspiracy. Not only is it unnecessary, but it has the potential to be harmful, because it is so far-fetched that it allows the media to portray the rest of us as tin-foil hat-wearing crazies.

Quote

I brought up the CIA’s MKULTRA project ... The people who tortured and poisoned so many Americans clearly didn’t think like us.

Just because the CIA did bad things doesn't mean they did irrational and unnecessary things. What they did was perfectly rational, in that it served their political and institutional purposes. None of the things Jim mentions were done for no good reason.

But Jim is claiming that they did other things for no good reason. There was no good reason for them to have set up a long-term project involving two pairs of doppelgangers, because a far simpler and more obvious alternative existed.

Jim is claiming that they did this for a reason. But he has as good as admitted that there was no reason. His claim makes no sense.

This is the basic flaw in the notion of a long-term project involving doppelgangers. There was no good reason for its existence. It could never have happened.

Quote

To speculate on their motives to establish a long-term impersonation, beyond the obvious advantages of total deniability, seems pointless.

It isn't pointless at all. It's essential. Jim needs to produce a plausible motive, because he is claiming that they did something they had every reason not to do.

We know that doppelgangers are not necessary in order to impersonate people. We know that doppelgangers would not have been necessary in order to produce a false defector who had an American background and understood Russian, which Jim claims is what the CIA wanted to produce.

Jim needs to come up with a plausible reason for the decision to set up a long-term scheme involving not one but two pairs of doppelgangers, and keeping it going for over a decade, when all the CIA needed to do was recruit one person and get him to learn Russian.

Quote

as I’ve said before, the use of lookalikes and impostors is common in spycraft.

As I've pointed out before when Jim made the same claim using the same examples, none of the examples he gives were part of any long-term project involving two pairs of doppelgangers.

Long-term projects involving two pairs of doppelgangers are not common. In fact, there are no examples of this in the real world, at least that I'm aware of.

Nor, of course, are there any examples in the real world of rogue intelligence agencies setting up long-term double-doppelganger projects when they had far simpler alternatives available.

Quote

And just to let you know, I’m going to continue posting H&L evidence right here until someone debunks it right here or Ed Forum administrators tell me to stop.

That's the problem, isn't it? Jim is like a religious fundamentalist, repeatedly quoting passages from his holy book while ignoring arguments to the contrary:

1. Jim quotes a passage from the Gospel According to Armstrong.
2. Someone provides evidence and argument against it, either pointing out its weaknesses or demolishing it outright.
3. Jim quotes the same passage again, with no acknowledgement of the criticisms that have been made.
4. Someone again provides evidence and argument against it, either pointing out its weaknesses or demolishing it outright.
5. Jim quotes the same passage again, with no acknowledgement of the criticisms that have been made.
6. Repeat ad nauseam.

If at first people don't believe you, keep quoting holy scripture at them.

Not only is it trolling, but it doesn't work. Jim has been doing this for over twenty years, and next to no-one has joined his cult.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

We've had numerous H&L threads on this forum since I joined several years ago and I don't recall any debunking of what Jim H. has posted.

Sandy should recall it, because he has contributed to many of those threads. The classic example is probably this one:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/

Mark Stevens destroyed the notion that an Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling school, an essential element of the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense. By the way, if anyone wants to argue otherwise, please do so on that thread, not this one.

Also of interest in that thread is Jim's reply to Mark's opening comment. Did Jim respond to the points Mark made? Of course he didn't! Did Jim simply regurgitate passages from holy scripture? Of course he did!

As Jonathan points out, every substantial piece of evidence put forward by the double-doppelganger gang has been taken to pieces either on this forum or elsewhere.

What's worth remembering is that it is up to the double-doppelganger gang to prove their case. It isn't up to anyone else to disprove it.

All that the rest of us need to do is show that, for each claim, an equally plausible or more plausible explanation exists. Almost any explanation that doesn't involve doppelgangers is going to be more plausible than one that does. A good example of that is Greg Parker and Jim Purtnell's article about Oswald's acquisition of Russian, which I mentioned earlier:

http://www.jfkconversations.com/lee-oswald-russian-language

That article gives a plausible explanation that doesn't require the use of doppelgangers. Of course, whenever something like Stripling or the infamous 13-inch head gets thoroughly debunked, that's a bonus. (Again, if anyone wants to discuss Oswald's Russian, there are other threads dedicated to that question, so please use one of them.)

Now, can anyone come up with a plausible reason why those masterminds would have set up a long-term project involving two pairs of doppelgangers when they had a simpler and far more obvious alternative?

It cannot have happened, can it?

[Jim Hargrove]

On 5/25/2022 at 6:03 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

Wow, if Jeremy Bojczuk ever made these concessions before, I must have missed it.  

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Jim Hargrove writes:

Yes, you did miss it. I have long considered that Oswald was probably impersonated (see here) and probably had connections to one or more US intelligence agencies (see here). As far as I can tell, that view is very common among critics of the lone-gunman theory.

Both the links you provide are to the website 22November1963.org.uk, a site for which Google makes the following warning: “The connection to 22november1963.org.uk is not secure. You are seeing this warning because this site does not support HTTPS. Learn more.”

As I suspected, despite nearly a thousand posts on the Ed Forum, you have never before conceded here that “Oswald appears to have had connections with one or more US intelligence agencies, and that this connection may well have been utilised in the JFK assassination,” and that “Oswald was probably impersonated in the run-up to the assassination.” 

I knew you hadn’t said anything about the above here because I’ve been waiting for years to make the following observation:  “Jeremy knows full well that Oswald was impersonated, and so we are only arguing about how long, and how many times, he was impersonated.”  This distinction causes him to say we “wear tin foil hats” and all sorts of insults like that.  
 
This gives the impression that Jeremy Bojczuk is far, far more interested in discrediting Harvey and Lee than in criticizing the Warren Commission and all the incorrect conclusions it reached. 
 

[Jim Hargrove]

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Why do you think the CIA  had no interest in any doppelganger schemes? What makes you the authority on that?

I'll bet that, had the illegal and unethical MK-Ultra schemes not been exposed, you would be claiming them to be "tin-foil-hat wearing" material that should be ignored.

I'll bet that, had the domestic terrorism plans of Operation Northwoods not been exposed, you would be claiming them to be "tin-foil-hat wearing" material that should be ignored.

Thank goodness we have Jim Hargrove to continue gathering and exposing evidence for the CIA's Oswald Project doppelganger scheme which clearly took place.

 

Thanks, Sandy.  Your support and contributions to two Oswald research are much appreciated.  

Isn’t it remarkable that the H&L critics active here never, ever debate the H&L evidence right here on the JFK assassination debate section of the Education Forum.  The critics simply post links and pretend that everything has been debunked somewhere else. Why are they afraid to discuss the EVIDENCE that has been presented over the years?

We’re hosting a big family reunion next week and I’ll probably not participate here during that time, so that should give the H&L critics time to post literally hundreds of links and pretend this has all been solved before.  As you know, it hasn’t.

[Jim Hargrove]

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

We've had numerous H&L threads on this forum since I joined several years ago and I don't recall any debunking of what Jim H. has posted. And I was skeptical of the H&L theory early on.

Everybody makes mistakes and it probably has been pointed out where Jim H. or John Armstrong has made a mistake. (I know I've made my own.) But almost everything that Jim has posted still stands.

Thanks again, Sandy.  The only attempts at H&L debunking I’ve seen here are comprised of links to other places and the claim that it’s all solved “over there.” As you well know,  nothing significant about H&L has been disproved.