Which came first, the bus or the Rambler?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

The cover story had two aspects.  First, there is who Harvey Oswald was actually.  And secondly, what did he have to offer.

My point, which John does not seem to have grasped, was that everything in his imaginary doppelganger's background would apply at least as well to an actual American.

School, family life, general upbringing, experience and areas of expertise in the Marines - all of these things would have been part of the background of a genuine American who defected.

There was no need to fake any of this by using a doppelganger who did not have a genuine American background. You could simply use a genuine American instead, couldn't you?

You'd save on staff costs by recruiting just one person, a genuine American, rather than recruiting four people: two Oswald doppelgangers and two Marguerite doppelgangers. Not to mention that there would be no need to twist the arms of those family members who were in on the plot so that they wouldn't give the game away (which some of them actually ended up doing - whoops!).

Using a genuine American would have another important advantage over using doppelgangers. The defecting doppelganger's false history was at risk of exposure if the Soviets decided to look into it. An American's genuine history could never be exposed as false.

So what good reason would there be to use doppelgangers when you could use a genuine American?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

There are any number of goals the CIA may have had to do this [i.e. set up a long-term double-doppelganger project]. I described one possibility that you didn't like.

Sandy hasn't suggested any goals which the CIA might have wanted to achieve by setting up a long-term double-doppelganger scheme, apart from the general goal of producing a false defector with a plausible American background who understood Russian. In other words, standard 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine.

As I've been pointing out, using doppelgangers to achieve that goal makes no sense. You don't need access to the inner workings of the CIA to understand that no institution would have done that, because the institution would have known that a much simpler alternative to doppelgangers existed.

There is still a gap in the basic premise of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory. No-one has been able to work out the reasoning behind the decision which forms the central feature of the theory. Why would the CIA (or anyone else) have set up a long-term project involving even one pair of doppelgangers, let alone two pairs of doppelgangers, when there was no need to use doppelgangers at all?

Why, specifically, use doppelgangers? Sandy can't think of a reason. Jim and John can't think of a reason. I can't think of a reason. There was no reason for using doppelgangers, was there?

[John Butler]

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

My point, which John does not seem to have grasped, was that everything in his imaginary doppelganger's background would apply at least as well to an actual American.

I grasp your point with no difficulty.  I just don't agree with you.  You think if you keep repeating the same un-factual arguments, or fact less arguments based upon fact less claims that someone will believe what you say if repeated enough.  That type of argument dies in the face of the facts.  There were two Oswalds.  Doppelgangers, if you like.  One was an immigrant, and the other was an American born citizen. 

John Armstrong, Jim Hargrove, David Josephs, and Sandy Larsen have covered the early years of Harvey and Lee so well and to the point where I really didn't have much interest there because I could not help or contribute much of anything to help.  

In other areas I was able to contribute things I thought were missed or perhaps more correctly a different interpretation of things already found by Armstrong, et al.  I know more about the time Harvey and Lee were in the service and Oswald's trip to Russia.  From that brief period there are many examples of the Doppelganger spy duo. 

1.  Lee Oswald is at a Marine training camp on the east coast in the summer of 1956 and Harvey is still in school in Ft. Worth

2.  Harvey Oswald joins the Marines in Oct. 1956.  PFC Lee Oswald is in California at a Marine base working in Aircraft Maintenance and Repair.  A couple of interesting things here.  Lee Oswald is trained in Aircraft Maintenance and Repair and is promoted to PFC before he joins the Marines in Oct. 1956.

3.  Lee Oswald goes for further training in Avionics in the spring of 1957 in Florida and I believe Mississippi.  Harvey receives his training in radar from the US Army in two classes.  This is what he says in a personal note.

4.  Lee Oswald goes to Japan in 1957 and is assigned to Atsugi Naval Base which is the largest CIA operation in the Orient.  Harvey disappears after being in California.  I believe he went AWOL in New Orleans for a year.  Or, perhaps this is when he received US Army training.

5.  Lee Oswald is at Atsugi, Japan while Harvey is in Taiwan.  

6.  Lee Oswald is at Atsugi, Japan while Harvey is at Iwakuni, Japan about 400 miles away.

7.  Lee Oswald leaves the service in March, 1959.  Harvey leaves the service in September, 1959.

8.  Harvey goes to Russia.  Lee Oswald essentially disappears for an extensive period.

9.  Harvey is in Finland or Russia in October, 1959.  Lee is on a MATS flight to Germany in mid-October, 1959.

10. Harvey is in Russia in the fall of 1959.  According to one source Lee is also in Russia in the fall of 1959 and early 1960 visiting Leningrad and Moscow and other places in Europe.

11.  Harvey is in Russia and Lee is in Florida creeping out Marita Lorenz at an anti-Castro training camp.

12.  Harvey is in Russia and Lee is in New Orleans bargaining to buy trucks in early 1961.

There are more simultaneous appearances of Harvey and Lee in two different places.  What is listed should be enough to make the point.

 

 

       

  

Edited June 6, 2022 by John Butler

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

I grasp your point with no difficulty.  I just don't agree with you. ... There were two Oswalds.  Doppelgangers, if you like.

If you really do understand the questions I'm asking, you shouldn't have too much trouble answering them.

The CIA's decision to use doppelgangers is right at the heart of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, isn't it?

If the CIA really did decide to use doppelgangers, they must have done so for a reason. But what reason could they have had for deciding to use doppelgangers when they didn't need to?

You can't think of a reason, can you?

You could look for an answer in the 'Harvey and Lee' cult's holy book. What does the holy book say about this?

It doesn't say anything, does it? The holy book doesn't explain the decision. It just expects its believers to accept as an article of faith that the CIA decided to use doppelgangers when a far simpler alternative existed.

You know why that is, don't you? It's because John Armstrong and Jack 'the moon landings were faked' White never bothered to think this nonsense through.

There's a big gap in the theory, and no-one knows how to fill it. The theory makes no sense.

[Jim Hargrove]

On 5/31/2022 at 12:11 AM, Greg Doudna said:

Jonathan, the one on the right of the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th row (all the same photo) I am certain is not Oswald. That photo has no known date or location or identity of photographer, nor verification that it was Oswald other than an appearance one time illustrating a Fort Worth newspaper article about Oswald. It is not Oswald from looking at it. Since there is no information on where the newspaper got that photo and the photo obviously is not Oswald it is meaningless as evidence of anything and should not be cited in Oswald photos.

What we do know about that photo is quite interesting.  Here's John A's write-up on it from our website.  The actual page is HERE.

Evolution of the "Defection" Photo

A substantial amount of work by unknown persons went into developing what ultimately became the 1959 "defection" photo of "Lee Harvey Oswald" that was published in the Nov. 1, 1959 edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
 

 

Poor quality image of Lee Oswald in Japan, probably taken by George "Hans" Wilkens	Here, a better verison of the photo has been retouched to eliminate background from head area	Image now has added lines and apparent facial altering

 

This washed-out photo of Lee Oswald was published by the Fort  Worth Star-Telegram when Harvey Oswald "defected." It resembles the original "Hans" Wilkens photo above, but with the background removed and some facial features altered.	The photo above was purchased by the author from AP/World Wide Photos.  The typed label to the left indicates: "This is a retransmission of FW1 of Nov. 1 to provide better copy."   Associated Press/Wide World Photos

 

This evidence of photo manipulation begs the obvious questions: Who did it and for what purpose?   Who  managed to get the odd version of the original photo placed in the Fort Worth newspaper?

Few individuals in the days before computers became commonplace had the skills to make such alterations, or in this case the motivation to do so.  A newspaper or wire service would have access to people with the required photo retouching and alteration abilities, but it is difficult to imagine why such an organization would have any interest in making these odd modifications.  An intelligence agency, on the other hand, intent on creating a fog of public perception around an undercover agent being sent to the Soviet Union on assignment, would have every reason--and certainly the ability--to make these strange alterations.  In the years since the Kennedy assassination, it has also been learned that the CIA had numerous "elite media assets" placed with many U.S. print and electronic media news organizations.  Many of these assets would have had the ability to to slip the odd "defection" photograph into the public record.

[Jim Hargrove]

5 hours ago, John Butler said:

I grasp your point with no difficulty.  I just don't agree with you.  You think if you keep repeating the same un-factual arguments, or fact less arguments based upon fact less claims that someone will believe what you say if repeated enough.  That type of argument dies in the face of the facts.  There were two Oswalds.  Doppelgangers, if you like.  One was an immigrant, and the other was an American born citizen. 

John Armstrong, Jim Hargrove, David Josephs, and Sandy Larsen have covered the early years of Harvey and Lee so well and to the point where I really didn't have much interest there because I could not help or contribute much of anything to help.  

In other areas I was able to contribute things I thought were missed or perhaps more correctly a different interpretation of things already found by Armstrong, et al.  I know more about the time Harvey and Lee were in the service and Oswald's trip to Russia.  From that brief period there are many examples of the Doppelganger spy duo. 

1.  Lee Oswald is at a Marine training camp on the east coast in the summer of 1956 and Harvey is still in school in Ft. Worth

2.  Harvey Oswald joins the Marines in Oct. 1956.  PFC Lee Oswald is in California at a Marine base working in Aircraft Maintenance and Repair.  A couple of interesting things here.  Lee Oswald is trained in Aircraft Maintenance and Repair and is promoted to PFC before he joins the Marines in Oct. 1956.

3.  Lee Oswald goes for further training in Avionics in the spring of 1957 in Florida and I believe Mississippi.  Harvey receives his training in radar from the US Army in two classes.  This is what he says in a personal note.

4.  Lee Oswald goes to Japan in 1957 and is assigned to Atsugi Naval Base which is the largest CIA operation in the Orient.  Harvey disappears after being in California.  I believe he went AWOL in New Orleans for a year.  Or, perhaps this is when he received US Army training.

5.  Lee Oswald is at Atsugi, Japan while Harvey is in Taiwan.  

6.  Lee Oswald is at Atsugi, Japan while Harvey is at Iwakuni, Japan about 400 miles away.

7.  Lee Oswald leaves the service in March, 1959.  Harvey leaves the service in September, 1959.

8.  Harvey goes to Russia.  Lee Oswald essentially disappears for an extensive period.

9.  Harvey is in Finland or Russia in October, 1959.  Lee is on a MATS flight to Germany in mid-October, 1959.

10. Harvey is in Russia in the fall of 1959.  According to one source Lee is also in Russia in the fall of 1959 and early 1960 visiting Leningrad and Moscow and other places in Europe.

11.  Harvey is in Russia and Lee is in Florida creeping out Marita Lorenz at an anti-Castro training camp.

12.  Harvey is in Russia and Lee is in New Orleans bargaining to buy trucks in early 1961.

There are more simultaneous appearances of Harvey and Lee in two different places.  What is listed should be enough to make the point.

  

John,

Thanks for this excellent list.  The USMC section of H&L is extraordinarily detailed and it is hard to keep all of it in mind without reviewing the text again and again.  Lists like the one above are very helpful, and the way you think outside the box, mixing John A's work with your own research, is often fascinating.  I'm not always convinced, but every bit of it is worth pursuing.  Thanks again!

[Sandy Larsen]

22 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy hasn't suggested any goals which the CIA might have wanted to achieve by setting up a long-term double-doppelganger scheme, apart from the general goal of producing a false defector with a plausible American background who understood Russian. In other words, standard 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine.

As I've been pointing out, using doppelgangers to achieve that goal makes no sense.

 

What I've highlighted above is merely Jonathan's opinion.

I believe that it made a lot of sense to have a CIA agent who spoke and understood the Russian language flawlessly, with an accent that wasn't American but rather that of a person who lived in the Soviet Union or at least a puppet state. If you also gave him an American past, he would be a very versatile and useful asset for the CIA.

I don't know if the CIA had in mind a false defector role for the fake Oswald (the one later killed by Ruby) when they first recruited him.

I believe that the CIA saw in the fake Oswald a golden opportunity they could not pass up. One who had no family to tie him down and a proven record of adjusting well with living with strangers and under a variety of situations.

 

22 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

You don't need access to the inner workings of the CIA to understand that no institution would have done that, because the institution would have known that a much simpler alternative to doppelgangers existed.

 

Another Jonathan opinion.

Jonathan assumes that it would be easy to pick an American who will learn and perfect his Russian language in a fairly short period of time. One who, at a young age, agrees to leave his family as needed to live in foreign countries to accomplish his missions. One who has been shown to adjust well in a variety of situations, including living in foreign lands.

Good luck with that pie-in-the-sky dream Jonathan.

 

[Greg Doudna]

Wait a minute Jim Hargrove-- what is the source and provenance of those two photos on the left below? I know the photo on the right published in the 1959 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article is captioned as Lee Harvey Oswald. It probably was taken from the photo of the left two, i.e. the photo of the left two must be the "original" used by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in 1959. But where did that photo come from, is the $64,000 question. What evidence is there of source, provenance, photographer, or identity of Oswald of that photo prior to the publication of the caption in the Fort Worth newspaper in 1959? 

I am asking how it can be excluded that this was a mistaken identification of a photo by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in 1959, since the photo does not look like Lee Harvey Oswald. Don't just quote Armstrong saying it was a photo of Oswald in Japan probably taken by a certain photographer name, as if undocumented (if so) quotations from Armstrong alone establish those things as facts. I am asking if there is known actual evidence for anything prior to 1959 on that photograph. I will not believe that is a photo of Lee Harvey Oswald (as claimed by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in 1959) unless I see evidence for the source or origin of that photo prior to the 1959 Fort Worth Star-Telegram publication. Where did the Fort Worth Star-Telegram get that photo, and who was responsible in the first instance for the claim that that photo was Lee Harvey Oswald?

I realize you cannot help it if you do not know. But if that information is not known, then it is a case of an unprovenanced photo of unknown origin that a newspaper published with a caption, which does not look like Oswald--and if that photo is in fact not Lee Harvey Oswald (despite the newspaper's 1959 photo caption claim), that it is better interpreted as a mistake than as a photo of a doppelganger Oswald.

 

16 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

A substantial amount of work by unknown persons went into developing what ultimately became the 1959 "defection" photo of "Lee Harvey Oswald" that was published in the Nov. 1, 1959 edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
 

Poor quality image of Lee Oswald in Japan, probably taken by George "Hans" Wilkens	Here, a better verison of the photo has been retouched to eliminate background from head area	Image now has added lines and apparent facial altering

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in 1959....photo does not look like Lee Harvey Oswald.

 

Greg,

Here's the Oswald who was shot by Ruby:

 

Do you think he looks like any of these guys:

 

I don't think the Oswald shot by Ruby looks like any of these guys. I do think, however, that these guys look like each other. In addition, I think that they look like these guys:

 

(The sun directly overhead shines on his nose and makes it look bigger.)

 

Yeah, all six of these guys look alike IMO. You can see in those photos where their hair is shorter that they all have the same hairline... with a broad widows peak. In contrast, the Oswald shot by Ruby has a pointed widows peak.

 

[John Butler]

18 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

John,

Thanks for this excellent list.  The USMC section of H&L is extraordinarily detailed and it is hard to keep all of it in mind without reviewing the text again and again.  Lists like the one above are very helpful, and the way you think outside the box, mixing John A's work with your own research, is often fascinating.  I'm not always convinced, but every bit of it is worth pursuing.  Thanks again!

Jim,

Thanks for the comment.

Did you notice that our anti-fan on the forum, Jeremey, didn't touch that list?  He just did his usual reason less  sound and fury.  He has a habit of ignoring the hard to refute things.  I invite Jeremy to challenge those.  I just gave a short indication of the events.  More can be said about the facts including times, witnesses, and events.  

If I had gone back to David's timeline and mine timeline, I could have listed many more.  Those are just what popped into my head at the time.  Your right there is way too many facts concerning Harvey and Lee to keep up with without going back to the reference sources.  And, more important, at my age, remembering those facts correctly.

Earlier on I re-posted what Lee Oswald would know that would be of interest to the Soviets.  Harvey would also have this knowledge.  It would be provided by his masters.  According to one source, Harvey had an exceptional memory.  While working at Jaggers, Chile, Stovall he memorized the information contained on the satellite photos of Cuba that they were be processed for the CIA and other defense agencies.  This included all the rivers, creeks, towns, roads, airports, and on and on for the whole island of Cuba. I would guess that at that time there was some project involving Cuba in the works.

Harvey was not a chump, wannabe spy.  He was involved in top level intelligence projects from the very beginning.  For example, Harvey was the single American living in Minsk.  None before him.  There were tourists that came through, but none lived there.  Minsk had the factory he was assigned to as a supervisor.  There were 5,000 workers there.  It was a significant part of the Russian defense industry.  Knowing about that industry was critical.  That was just one part of his mission to Russia.  I'm with Mae Brussels and Slyvia Meagher on the U2 disruption of the peace talks in 1960 which they believe, and I believe was his primary mission. 

Here's where I go off the beaten track.  If both Oswalds were in Russia, Lee the technical one, could be at the factory helping out the Russians with their radar and missile defense vis-a-vis the U2 while Harvey is elsewhere setting up spy networks.  It is just an idea that pops up from time to time.             

[Sandy Larsen]

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

In contrast, the Oswald shot by Ruby has a pointed widows peak.

 

You can see here that if you pulled his front hair up, his widow's peak would be narrow. Unlike the other Oswald's widow's peak.

 

[John Butler]

Sandy,

I especially like this comparison.

Even if one has little facial recognition skills you should be able to tell the difference between these two.

Recognizing Oswalds is complicated by photo editing.  There are various reasons for that.  One is providing a passport that both could use.  Secondly, disguising Lee Oswald who has to disappear and never be seen.  Every photo of Lee Oswald had to be transformed into Harvey, the man shot at the DPD.  They rarely missed the opportunity.  Well, except for things that were published such as newspapers and yearbooks.

It's my opinion that you will find bits of both Lee and Harvey in a lot of photos.   

[John Butler]

17 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yeah, all six of these guys look alike IMO. You can see in those photos where their hair is shorter that they all have the same hairline... with a broad widows peak. In contrast, the Oswald shot by Ruby has a pointed widows peak.

Yes, and he had that early on.  As early as 1958.  In later photos this widow's peak is hard to notice due to his hair cut.  He used comb overs to hide that receding hairline.  When his hair was neatly combed the hair recession was somewhat difficult to see.  There are photos at the DPS where his hair is awry probably due to a beat down.  In these photos the recession is seen better.

Edited June 7, 2022 by John Butler

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

It's my opinion that you will find bits of both Lee and Harvey in a lot of photos.

 

I agree, John.

In fact, two of the photos I used to represent LEE in my post are actually composites of both HARVEY and LEE. These:

     

I used them for LEE in my earlier post because they look more like LEE than HARVEY. At least that is my opinion.

The left halves of these photos are LEE and the right halves are HARVEY. How do I know that? I'll show you:

Take, for example, the photo on the left. Here it is:

The left half of this photo is one of the Oswalds and the right half is the other Oswald.

Now imagine cutting the photo in half and taking only the left half. Set the right half aside.

Make a mirage-image copy of that half and attach it to the original left half. This is what we get:

Now do the same thing with the right half that you earlier set aside. This is what we get:

 

The top image that came from the left half is clearly LEE and the bottom image that came from the right half is clearly HARVEY (the one killed by Ruby).

Compare the reconstructed composites to original LEE and HARVEY photos here:

 

    

LEE Oswald

 

     

HARVEY Oswald

 

[Jim Hargrove]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I agree, John.

In fact, two of the photos I used to represent LEE in my post are actually composites of both HARVEY and LEE. These:

     

I used them for LEE in my earlier post because they look more like LEE than HARVEY. At least that is my opinion.

The left halves of these photos are LEE and the right halves are HARVEY. How do I know that? I'll show you:

Take, for example, the photo on the left. Here it is:

The left half of this photo is one of the Oswalds and the right half is the other Oswald.

Now imagine cutting the photo in half and taking only the left half. Set the right half aside.

Make a mirage-image copy of that half and attach it to the original left half. This is what we get:

Now do the same thing with the right half that you earlier set aside. This is what we get:

 

The top image that came from the left half is clearly LEE and the bottom image that came from the right half is clearly HARVEY (the one killed by Ruby).

Compare the reconstructed composites to original LEE and HARVEY photos here:

 

    

LEE Oswald

 

     

HARVEY Oswald

 

Sandy and John,

This is fascinating work you guys are doing.  I had long ago given up hope that the photographic record was trustworthy enough to shed much light on the true Oswalds, but perhaps there is hope after all.

John A. and I have talked about this a lot, and he, like us, believes the photos are pretty untrustworthy.  John’s technique, for his book and our website, was to use the mostly “official” photos that seemed to match the biographical data he compiled on the Oswalds and to just emphasize a few photos that were clearly composites, the most well-known being this one:

You guys may not be aware that back in 2015 a Dallas attorney named Drew Phipps did an ambitious study he called “Pixel Counting Biometric Comparison of Oswald photos.”  He compared ratios of "pupil-to-pupil / width of eye" (called P/W hereafter), "pupil-to-pupil / length of nose" (called P/N hereafter), "pupil-to-pupil / nose-to-top-lip" (called P/L hereafter) and "pupil-to-pupil / earlobe-to-earlobe (called P/E hereafter) between images to try to determine whether they showed the same young man.

He cautiously summarized his data this way:

Visual Conclusions: Unless there is something terribly wrong with my methodology, (or my spreadsheet skills), or the photos are simply too low resolution for a significant biometric comparison, there is some evidence that there is more than one individual here.

If I had to clump the photos in two different piles, it looks to me like photos 1, 2, 3, 9 and 13 are the same individual, and photos 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12 are the same individual.

The full study is still up on the Deep Politics Forum HERE.

Unfortunately, unless you are a member of the Deep Politics Forum, you will not be able to see the images Mr. Phipps worked with.  I believe it is still free to join.