Which came first, the bus or the Rambler?

[Greg Doudna]

24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Greg,

I don't know about John Butler, but Jim Hargrove and John Armstrong do not use photos to prove that there were two Oswalds. The fact that some LHO photos look like the one killed by Ruby, and other LHO photos don't, merely give support to the two-Oswald theory that has been proven in other ways.

OK on your first sentence. But not OK on your second sentence that those photos "give support to" the two-Oswald theory for they don't. That is a wholly unjustified claim to draw from what really are nothing other than those two misidentifications of photo captions and labeling.

 

[John Butler]

5 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I'm not going to get back into a debate about the teeth again, since this has been discussed many times previously, and numerous alternative explanations have been presented that don't involve doppelgangers.

Yep.  Numerous alternative explanations have been presented over the years to counter Lee Harvey Oswalds lost teeth.  However, none, have proven to be true.  Lee Harvey Oswald lost teeth in a fight at school and he did not miraculously regrow those front teeth.  The facts are the facts unless you want to go on about how unreliable witnesses are.  You do that a lot when you have nothing left but insults.  Harvey still had his front teeth when he was killed and buried.  In 1981 he was exhumed and examined.  Guess what?  He still had all of his front teeth.

And yes, who knows what happened to Lee.  Whatever happened to Lee I would be willing to bet he still had not regrown any front teeth.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

32 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

OK on your first sentence. But not OK on your second sentence that those photos "give support to" the two-Oswald theory for they don't. That is a wholly unjustified claim to draw from what really are nothing other than those two misidentifications of photo captions and labeling.

 

Where is your proof that those photos were misidentified?

 

[Greg Doudna]

16 minutes ago, John Butler said:

 

 

John, in my first contribution ever to better understanding on the Education Forum, I figured out what was going on in the photo above. There is neither missing teeth in Oswald nor a blemish or alteration of the photograph. Lee is holding the cap of a pen in his teeth.

Edited May 31, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Sandy Larsen]

18 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

There is neither missing teeth in Oswald nor a blemish or alteration of the photograph. Lee is holding the cap of a pen in his teeth.

 

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim, Greg?

We have plenty of corroborating evidence showing that that is a lost tooth in the photo and not the cap of a pen:

 

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Robert Charles-Dunne writes:

Quote

The diligent, methodical John Armstrong wouldn't cite two different principals from the same witness and not notice, would he? ... Personally, I have a hard time accepting that John Armstrong is that inept, shoddy, or lazy. 

We have to consider the possibility that Armstrong isn't sufficiently concerned about whether what he writes is true or false.

I'm sure most of us by now are familiar with Armstrong's approach to Oswald's exhumation in 1981. Armstrong claimed that the body in Oswald's grave was that of an imaginary doppelganger who had not undergone a mastoidectomy operation. The exhumation disproved Armstrong's claim, by showing that the body in question had in fact undergone a mastoidectomy operation.

Armstrong's elaborate chronology of his two doppelgangers' lives is central to his theory. The exhumation shows that this chronology cannot be true, and that a fundamental aspect of his theory is wrong.

What did Armstrong do? Did he admit that his theory was wrong? No, he simply failed to inform his readers about the mastoidectomy evidence from the exhumation, and repeated his claim that the body was that of the imaginary doppelganger who had not undergone the operation.

Armstrong certainly knew about the pathologists' report of the exhumation, since he cited it in his book, which was published nearly 20 years after the exhumation. Armstrong must have assumed that back then, in the early days of the world-wide web, few people would be able to consult the report (L.E. Norton, J.A. Coffone, I.M. Sopher, and V.J.M. DiMaio, ‘The Exhu­mation and Identification of Lee Harvey Oswald,’ Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol.29 no.1 [January 1984], pp.19–38). Unfortunately, a text version is now available online: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/parnell/nreport.htm. Armstrong has been rumbled.

Armstrong misled his readers by not telling them that the exhumation report contradicted a central element of his theory.

It doesn't look good, does it?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

Who knows what happened to Lee.

That sums up the mentality of the few remaining believers in this far-fetched, poorly thought-out, incoherent and long-discredited theory.

• If you believe the theory, you believe that the CIA decided, some time around 1950, that several years in the future they would send to the Soviet Union a false defector, and that this defector needed to possess two things: a genuine American background and an understanding of Russian.
• You understand that all the CIA needed to do was recruit an American and spend the intervening years getting him to learn Russian.
• You believe that instead of simply recruiting one American adult and getting him to learn Russian, the CIA decided to recruit four people, including one boy who already understood Russian but didn't have an American background, and one boy who did have an American background but didn't understand Russian, and that the CIA would get one of the boys to impersonate the other for more than a decade.
• You are unable to explain why the CIA would have chosen this absurdly complicated solution when a far simpler solution existed.
• You aren't concerned about your inability to explain how this scheme could ever have been chosen.
• You believe that the CIA recruited a mother for each of the boys, and that the two mothers looked near enough identical to each other, apart from their eyebrows.
• You believe that the CIA maintained two households, each containing an Oswald doppelganger and a Marguerite doppelganger, for more than a decade, up to the weekend of the JFK assassination.
• You accept that people can be impersonated without the use of doppelgangers, but you are unable to explain why it was necessary to use doppelgangers in this case.
• You believe that the CIA hoped that when the two boys grew up, they would magically come to look near enough identical, and that - hey presto! - the boys did indeed end up looking near enough identical, apart from their heights, which were so remarkably flexible that one of the Oswald doppelgangers left the Marines measuring 5' 11", then shrank to 5' 6" a few years later, and grew back to 5' 11" by the time of the assassination.
• You believe that the boy who was recruited specifically for his understanding of Russian was allowed, by the CIA masterminds who were supervising his development, to forget the language, so that he had to learn the language again shortly before he defected, thereby making the whole double-doppelganger project redundant.
• You believe that once one of the Oswald doppelgangers was shot by Jack Ruby, the other Oswald doppelganger and one of the Marguerite doppelgangers vanished into thin air.
• You have no explanation for the sudden disappearance of one Oswald doppelganger and one Marguerite doppelganger.
• You aren't concerned ("Who knows what happened to Lee") about your inability to explain what happened to the missing pair of doppelgangers.
• You aren't concerned that the theory you believe in was dreamed up by two people, one of whom believed that the moon landings were faked, and the other of whom was happy to mislead the readers of his book about the results of Oswald's exhumation in 1981.
• You aren't concerned about the harm that the double-doppelganger fantasy might cause, if newcomers to the JFK assassination debate concluded that all critics of the lone-gunman idea were a bunch of tin-foil hat-wearing crazies.

[John Butler]

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

That sums up the mentality of the few remaining believers in this far-fetched, poorly thought-out, incoherent and long-discredited theory.

I am afraid it doesn't.  You have no facts or proof to back up your description.  All you have is distortions.  Just like the tooth example proof that Sandy Larsen gave you guys.  When you can't face the facts, you go into avoidance.  I said we don't know what happened to Lee after the JFKA.  You quote that and then go off on what one your rants with little care for facts or any kind of logic.

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

You understand that all the CIA needed to do was recruit an American and spend the intervening years getting him to learn Russian.

  You keep saying this as if this solves everything and in reality it doesn't mean anything or solve anything.  Its simply an illogical counter argument and not based on historical evidence.  The counter to your argument is why use an American when there were all these immigrants from European countries available.  Do you think Harvey and Lee were the only double spies of this project?  They are the only ones we know.

They already had their native language, like Harvey, so why train someone who would stand out as an American?.  Allen Dulles and Frank Wisner were the OSS/CIA people who thought of this idea when they began helping refugees from German aggression in WWII to the US.  Special permission was given by the government to use these people after the war. 

Edited June 1, 2022 by John Butler

[John Butler]

18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

That is a wholly unjustified claim to draw from what really are nothing other than those two misidentifications of photo captions and labeling.

I don't believe you stated what was misidentified.  Surely, you can see Harvey Oswald's teeth in the 1981 re-examination of his corpse.  Do you think that is someone else's teeth?  Where is the misidentification when the teeth are clearly labelled?

The second inset is of Lee Harvey Oswald's photo in a school yearbook photo.  Has that been misidentified?  Had the Jenner/Voebel WC testimony been misidentified?  You should be savvy enough about the JFKA to see and understand what is being said in the photo montage and understand the evidence.

Where are the misidentifications?

As far as Oswald's teeth, Sandy Larsen has provided clear and convincing proof that Lee Oswald had a missing tooth.  It is hard to argue with facts.   

 

[John Butler]

17 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

There is neither missing teeth in Oswald nor a blemish or alteration of the photograph. Lee is holding the cap of a pen in his teeth.

Look and see.  And further, understand.

Sorry, no pen cap visible.  I found this on the internet.  Looks like my work plus someone else.  Are these photos in this montage misidentified?  If you are having trouble IDing these then I can provide you with a description of where these photos came from. 

  

 

[Sean Coleman]

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

Look and see.  And further, understand.

Sorry, no pen cap visible.  I found this on the internet.  Looks like my work plus someone else.  Are these photos in this montage misidentified?  If you are having trouble IDing these then I can provide you with a description of where these photos came from. 

  

 

LHO’s teeth should have its own thread, and John…you be de man

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

why use an American when there were all these immigrants from European countries available.

It's because, according to 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine, the CIA required one person with a plausible American background.

If you need someone with a plausible American background, what's the first thing you'd think of doing? You'd think about recruiting a genuine American, wouldn't you? I would have thought that was kind of obvious.

There was no shortage of Americans with genuine American backgrounds. Why choose an immigrant from Europe instead? And why recruit four people when you only need to recruit one?

What, according to the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, was the CIA's thinking process? They must have had a good reason for doing what you say they did, if they actually did it. What was that reason?

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

It's because, according to 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine, the CIA required one person with a plausible American background.

If you need someone with a plausible American background, what's the first thing you'd think of doing? You'd think about recruiting a genuine American, wouldn't you? I would have thought that was kind of obvious.

There was no shortage of Americans with genuine American backgrounds. Why choose an immigrant from Europe instead? And why recruit four people when you only need to recruit one?

What, according to the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, was the CIA's thinking process? They must have had a good reason for doing what you say they did, if they actually did it. What was that reason?

 

There you go again Jeremy... saying that you know best what the CIA wanted to do and how they should have done it. What again makes you the expert on CIA matters?

As for us, we don't presume to know how the CIA would have done things. We just go by the vast amount of evidence leading to the conclusion that there were two Lee Harvey Oswalds and that the one who (fake) defected to Russia had taken on the past history of the other one. Kick and scream all you want (because you don't like it), but that's just the way it is.

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

saying that you know best what the CIA wanted to do and how they should have done it.

I'm not saying what the CIA wanted to do. I'm reporting what the 'Harvey and Lee' theory claims is what the CIA wanted to do: send to the Soviet Union a false defector with a plausible American background.

That is what the theory claims, isn't it? The plausible American background is an essential part of the theory, isn't it?

I'm just making the observation that if the CIA really had wanted to do that, the CIA could not possibly have overlooked the most obvious way to achieve that goal. If you need someone with a plausible American background, you choose an actual American.

That is the easiest way to achieve that goal, isn't it?

The 'Harvey and Lee' theory claims that the CIA didn't do that. But the theory is unable to explain why the CIA didn't do that. The theory is incoherent. The fantasists who dreamed it up didn't think this stuff through.

Quote

we don't presume to know how the CIA would have done things.

But you do presume to know what the CIA did, and what it wanted to do, namely to recruit a false defector who possessed:

• an American background
• and a knowledge of Russian that would allow him to understand what was being said around him.

You also presume to know how the CIA went about achieving that goal:

• recruit four people instead of just one,
• and set up a complicated decade-long scheme involving two pairs of doppelgangers, instead of just letting the one person learn Russian.

It is a fundamental claim of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory that the CIA decided to set up a long-term double-doppelganger scheme. If, as the theory claims, the CIA made that decision, the CIA must have had a good reason for doing so, mustn't it?

What was the reason for making that decision?

You need to fill in this gaping hole in your theory. Why on earth would any rational organisation have made that particular decision?

[Ed LeDoux]

On 4/27/2022 at 3:43 AM, Steve Thomas said:

In terms of their arrival on the scene, which came first, the bus allegedly carrying Oswald, or the Rambler that Roger Craig said he saw?

I have a feeling that it was the bus, but I don't really know.

Steve Thomas

Steve,

12:40 is supposedly Craig's Rambler run in.

about ten minutes to the Theater by car....

12:50 Lee would be in Oak Cliff with time to grab clothes pistol passport and get away ... so what happened to the negro and the wagon and this getaway?!?

They vanished quicker than a tall Marguerite and second Oz.

Its as if the wagon and dark stranger were never a part of Lee's afternoon.

More likely scenario; 

Lee is stopped at front door by Lt Kaminski and asked to step aside.

Truly says hes okay.

Cops get around to taking his name and address from his Library Card and let him go. 

This must be a longer timeframe than WC gives for Lee's exit as 12:33. 

Both the Marsalis and Beckley bus were together on Elm 7 blocks up from the TSBD. 

12:36 Mcwatters is at St.Paul his checkpoint.

12:40 at Griffin.

12:43 at Lamar

12:45ish at Record for last stop

Since Beckley bus stopped at Elm and Houston it would have been there about about 12:46 giving Beckley bus 20 minutes to get Lee to Jefferson Blvd and a minute or two to walk to theater and buy a ticket, then Butch Burroughs sees Lee at 1:07 sells him popcorn at 1:15

No stops, no changed clothes, no murders.

Bus ride to the movies? Lee must be guilty as only the guilt ridden can sit  through a double feature after a double murder.

Cheers!

Ed