Which came first, the bus or the Rambler?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Unsurprisingly, Jim has again failed to answer a couple of straightforward questions.

Question 1: Does Jim accept that someone can be impersonated without the use of doppelgangers?

Jim's non-answer:

Quote

To my knowledge, I’ve never been impersonated in my life.  How ‘bout you?

The purpose of my question was to get Jim to acknowledge the obvious fact that impersonations do not require the use of doppelgangers. This was the point Jonathan made in the comment Jim seemed to think was so important that he made a screen shot of it.

Surely Jim can acknowledge that impersonations do not require the use of doppelgangers. Of course, once you acknowledge that, you're not far from acknowledging that long-term projects involving two pairs of doppelgangers aren't necessary either.

Question 2: 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?

Jim's non-answer:

Quote

Most people know that it is far easier to learn a second or third language as a child, and that is about the only sure way to do so and still speak without a discernible accent.

The purpose of this question was to allow Jim to fill in an important gap in his theory.

Jim claims that a group of CIA masterminds decided to recruit a doppelganger Oswald and a doppelganger Marguerite, and decided to keep both pairs of doppelgangers going for over a decade.

But he hasn't explained why those masterminds would have decided to do any of this. As far as I'm aware, Armstrong's book Harvey and Lee doesn't offer an explanation either.

As I understand it, what the masterminds wanted was a false defector who:

• had a plausible American background;
• and would be able to understand the Russian that would be spoken around him in the Soviet Union.

As I've pointed out repeatedly, this goal could be achieved more easily than by setting up a long-term double-doppelganger project. All the masterminds needed to do was recruit an American with a talent for languages. There would have been ample time to get the American up to speed in Russian. Doppelgangers were not required.

Recruiting an American would have been simpler, cheaper, and far more obvious than setting up and maintaining Jim's supposed long-term double-doppelganger project. The simple solution would have been so obvious that no-one would have even considered the possibility of using doppelgangers. Jim's hypothetical project could never have happened.

If those masterminds did do what Jim claims they did, the masterminds must have had a good reason, mustn't they? What was that reason?

[Sandy Larsen]

16 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Jim claims that a group of CIA masterminds decided to recruit a doppelganger Oswald and a doppelganger Marguerite, and decided to keep both pairs of doppelgangers going for over a decade.

But he hasn't explained why those masterminds would have decided to do any of this.

 

There you go again Jeremy, pretending you know better than the CIA why they do the things they do. Or should I say, expecting Jim to know better than the CIA why they do the things they do.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Thanks, Sandy.

Mr. B. ignores almost everything I said in answer to his hypothetical question. My actual answers are here.

On top of that, he continues to ignore the evidence I presented to him destroying his analysis of Milton Jones.  Will he ever respond?

The latest of several version of this post are here.

[John Butler]

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Question 2: 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?

Jeremy,

Are you saying there were two Harveys and two Lees?  I have always thought there were more than just Harvey and Lee.  Are you confirming that? 

Jim and others have already explained about the OSS and later CIA's interest in foreign refugees and immigrants for possible use in the future.  A particular law was passed in order for them to do that.  The doppelganger program was already in place when that law was passed.  How many agents were established from the immigrants and refugees from Europe is not known.  We only know of one, Harvey Oswald the false defector.  And we wouldn't have known about that except for the JFKA.  

Edited May 22, 2022 by John Butler

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

pretending you know better than the CIA why they do the things they do. Or should I say, expecting Jim to know better than the CIA why they do the things they do.

I'm expecting Jim to have a reasonable explanation for why "the CIA" (whatever that means in this context) did what he thinks they did.

If they really did set up and maintain a project involving two pairs of doppelgangers for over a decade, they must have had a good reason for doing so, mustn't they?

Jim thinks "the CIA" did do this. He must have satisfied himself that they had a good reason for doing this. Why is he so reluctant to share that reason with the rest of us?

There was no good reason for setting up such a complex scheme, was there?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

Mr. B. ignores almost everything I said in answer to his hypothetical question. My actual answers are here.

But I didn't ignore Jim's answers, such as they were. I actually quoted them in my comment at the top of this page. Jim, as usual, didn't deal with the points I raised in my questions.

As far as the first question is concerned, I think we can assume that he agrees with me that it's possible for people to be impersonated without the involvement of doppelgangers, let alone two pairs of doppelgangers.

The second question is the important one, because it reveals a fundamental problem with Jim's theory. He is claiming that "the CIA" did something which they had every reason not to do.

If, as Jim claims, they wanted to produce a false defector with a plausible American background who could understand Russian, all they had to do was recruit a genuine American, with a genuine American background, and get him to learn Russian to a reasonable level.

According to Jim's account, more than enough time was available for an intelligent American to learn Russian to the required level. This would have required far fewer people, and thus cost far less, than a long-term double-doppelganger project. There would have been much less risk of discovery by the Soviet authorities. If "the CIA" wanted to impersonate Oswald in order to implicate him in the assassination, as may actually have happened, a small number of ad hoc impersonations in the run-up to the assassination were all that was required.

"The CIA" had every reason not to set up a project involving a genuine Oswald, an Oswald impersonator, a genuine Marguerite, and a Marguerite impersonator, and to keep that project running for more than a decade.

There was no necessity to set up a long-term project involving two pairs of doppelgangers, was there? Will Jim at least admit that much?

[Jim Hargrove]

When he quoted me in the post above this one, Mr. B. again removed the link to my actual answers to his question, which, once again, are here.

Mr. B. endlessly defends an organization that, during the very era we are considering, tortured thousands of unsuspecting people, including children, with mind-altering drugs, electroshocks, sexual abuse, and much more.  Here are the first two paragraphs from the Wikipedia article on MKULTRA:

Project MKUltra (or MK-Ultra)^[a] was the code name of an illegal human experimentation program designed and undertaken by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).^[1][2][3] The experiments were intended to develop procedures and identify drugs such as LSD that could be used in interrogations to weaken individuals and force confessions through brainwashing and psychological torture. MKUltra used numerous methods to manipulate its subjects' mental states and brain functions, such as the covert administration of high doses of psychoactive drugs (especially LSD) and other chemicals, electroshocks,^[4] hypnosis,^[5][6] sensory deprivation, isolation, and verbal and sexual abuse, in addition to other forms of torture.^[7][8]

MKUltra was preceded by two drug-related experiments, Project Bluebird and Project Artichoke.^[9][10] It began in 1953, was reduced in scope in 1964 and 1967, and was halted in 1973. It was organized through the CIA's Office of Scientific Intelligence and coordinated with the United States Army Biological Warfare Laboratories.^[11] The program engaged in illegal activities,^[12][13][14] including the use of U.S. and Canadian citizens as unwitting test subjects.^{[12]: 74 [15][16][17]} MKUltra's scope was broad, with activities carried out under the guise of research at more than 80 institutions, including colleges and universities, hospitals, prisons, and pharmaceutical companies.^[18] The CIA operated using front organizations, although some top officials at these institutions were aware of the CIA's involvement.^[19]

Mr. B. wants me to explain the “thinking” that went on at the CIA in the 1950s and 1960s? Take a hike! Or, better yet, follow the EVIDENCE and stop trying to sweep it all under the carpet.
 

[Jim Hargrove]

Mr. B. continues to ignore the evidence I presented to him destroying his analysis of Milton Jones. Will he ever respond?

The latest of several version of this post are here.

[John Butler]

On 5/22/2022 at 4:16 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Unsurprisingly, Jim has again failed to answer a couple of straightforward questions.

Jeremy,

I don't think so.  Jim has worked hard to provide you with the information you were requesting, but as usual if it doesn't fit your bias you ignore and deny the facts.  You can do better.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

Mr. B. endlessly defends an organization that, during the very era we are considering, tortured thousands of unsuspecting people, including children, with mind-altering drugs, electroshocks, sexual abuse, and much more.

Does Jim seriously equate criticism of his absurd theory with defending the CIA? Wow.

Those of us who question his absurd theory do so for two main reasons: because it is obviously absurd, and because it is liable to harm the public image of genuine critics of the lone-gunman orthodoxy.

That public image is under attack by the media, who claim that all critics of the lone-gunman orthodoxy are semi-paranoid 'conspiracy theorists'. Of course, that characterisation is not accurate. The majority of people who question the lone-gunman theory do so rationally, using solid evidence and coherent arguments.

But there are, unfortunately, a number of semi-paranoid 'conspiracy theorists' (in the propaganda sense of the term) who have attached themselves like leeches to the JFK assassination. They question the lone-gunman theory irrationally, using weak evidence and incoherent arguments.

Among them is Jim Hargrove, with his promotion of an incoherent theory about a long-term double-doppelganger project that cannot have happened. Jim has demonstrated that it cannot have happened by his repeated inability to provide a plausible account of why such a project would ever have been implemented.

It isn't the rational critics who are doing the CIA's work. That job is being done by Jim and other peddlers of far-fetched, incoherent theories which provide ammunition for the propaganda line that only tin-foil-hat types question the lone-gunman orthodoxy.

Quote

Mr. B. wants me to explain the “thinking” that went on at the CIA in the 1950s and 1960s?

No, I want Jim to explain the thinking that went on when the absurd double-doppelganger theory was being dreamed up by Jack 'the moon landings were faked' White and John Armstrong.

When these fantasists came up with this nonsense, they neglected to dream up a plausible motivation for their supposed perpetrators. Why would anyone have decided to set up a long-term impersonation scheme involving doppelgangers when there was no need to do so?

That's what I wanted Jim to explain. If such a scheme existed, there must have been a good reason why it was chosen ahead of a far simpler and more obvious alternative. Jim's repeated inability to come up with a good reason demonstrates that there was no good reason.

Jim has spent more than twenty years unsuccessfully pimping a theory that is not only far-fetched but also incoherent. He must have worked out long ago that there was no way the scheme he proposes could have existed.

It would be helpful if Jim could, at long last, deal with the question honestly and admit that the scheme he proposes could never have happened because there was never any good reason for setting it up.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

Jim has worked hard to provide you with the information you were requesting.

But Jim hasn't done any of that. He has avoided answering both of the questions I asked.

The first question Jim avoided was to do with the obvious fact that if you want to impersonate someone, you don't need to use doppelgangers. I assume that everyone accepts this, even Jim. Unfortunately, Jim doesn't possess sufficient honesty or strength of mind to admit it, because he knows that if doppelgangers are unnecessary, his pet theory unravels.

The second question Jim avoided was to do with the motivation of his supposed masterminds. Why did they do what Jim claims they did?

He claims that they set up a complex impersonation scheme that involved not one but two pairs of doppelgangers, and that they maintained this scheme for a decade or more.

But, as I've pointed out, there was no need for them to do this. A far simpler, cheaper and more obvious alternative existed. If Jim thinks his masterminds decided to go with the more complex scheme, he really needs to show that they had a good reason for doing so. But he hasn't.

Jim hasn't answered that question. He has in effect admitted that his long-term double-doppelganger scheme could never have existed.

I'll give him another opportunity. Jim, why did those masterminds decide to implement a long-term scheme involving two pairs of doppelgangers when there was no need to do so?

[Jim Hargrove]

With his usual attacks using words like “absurd,” “semi-paranoid,” “leeches,” “incoherent,” “tin-foil hat types,” “far-fetched,” and so on, Mr. B. continues to ignore much of the answer I gave him days ago to his hypothetical question asking me to explain the “thinking” of a CIA that, in the very time we are discussing, was engaged in a wide-spread campaign to torture and poison American citizens.

Here is the answer I gave days ago to his hypothetical question:

For the first question above:

To my knowledge, I’ve never been impersonated in my life.  How ‘bout you?  Strange that there is so much evidence that LHO was impersonated time and time again.

Laura Kittrell met both Oswalds and described their similarities and differences to the HSCA’s Gaeton Fonzi, who wrote: 

“She has concluded that the person she saw the last time wasn’t really Oswald but perhaps someone he sent in his place in order to maintain his employment claim.  ‘He looked the same,’ she said, ‘the same general outline and coloring and build, but there was something so different in his bearing…..’  She said that although she suspected the fellow might not have been Oswald at the time, she wasn’t sure and she didn’t want to call him a xxxx and create a scene without being sure."

For the second question:

I’ve never bothered to respond to this hypothetical argument despite all the times you have repeated it.  Most people know that it is far easier to learn a second or third language as a child, and that is about the only sure way to do so and still speak without a discernible accent. As Sandy Larsen wrote above, “Jeremy apparently knows better than the CIA what their needs are and how they should accomplish their goals. Maybe they'll offer him a job.”

Without giving Russian-speaking Harvey parallel experiences with American-born Lee, how would Harvey respond to the simplest questions from the Soviets.  For example:

“Say Comrade.  Dis Bo-Re-Gard School you go to, where you eat lunch, eh?  First floor, second or third, basement, roof?  Where?”

Nothing could be clearer than the fact that “Lee Harvey Oswald” and the entire JFK assassination has all the earmarks of an intelligence operation.  Let me repeat a list of reasons to believe this is true for “Lee Harvey Oswald.”

20 Indications the Oswald Project Was Run by the CIA

1. CIA accountant James Wilcott testified that he made payments to an encrypted account for “Oswald or the Oswald Project.”  Contemporaneous HSCA notes indicate Wilcott told staffers, but wasn't allowed to say in Executive session, that the cryptonym for the CIA's "Oswald Project" was RX-ZIM.

2. A 1978 CIA memo indicates that a CIA operations officer “had run an agent into the USSR, that man having met a Russian girl and eventually marrying her,” a case very similar to Oswald’s and clearly indicating that the Agency ran a “false defector” program in the 1950s.

3. Robert Webster and LHO "defected" a few months apart in 1959, both tried to "defect" on a Saturday, both possessed "sensitive" information of possible value to the Russians, both were befriended by Marina Prusakova, and both returned to the United States in the spring of 1962.

4. Richard Sprague, Richard Schweiker, and CIA agents Donald Norton and Joseph Newbrough all said LHO was associated with the CIA. 

5. CIA employee Donald Deneslya said he read reports of a CIA "contact" who had worked at a radio factory in Minsk and returned to the US with a Russian wife and child.

6. Kenneth Porter, employee of CIA-connected Collins Radio, apparently left his family to marry (and perhaps monitor) Marina Oswald after LHO’s death.

7. George Joannides, case officer and paymaster for DRE (which LHO had attempted to infiltrate) was put in charge of lying to the HSCA and never told them of his relationship to DRE.

8. For his achievements, Joannides was given a medal by the CIA.

9. FBI took Oswald off the watch list at the same time a CIA cable gave him a clean bill of political health, weeks after Oswald’s New Orleans arrest and less than two months before the assassination.

10. Oswald’s lengthy “Lives of Russian Workers” essay, or whatever we call it,  reads like a pretty good intelligence report.

11. Oswald’s possessions were searched for microdots.

12. Oswald owned an expensive Minox spy camera, which the FBI tried to make disappear.

13. Even the official cover story of the radar operator near American U-2 planes defecting to Russia, saying he would give away all his secrets, and returning home without penalty smells like a spy story.

14. CIA's Richard Case Nagell clearly knew about the plot to assassinate JFK and LHO’s relation to it, and he said that the CIA and the FBI ignored his warnings.

15. LHO always seemed poor, at least until it was time to go “on assignment.”  For his Russian adventure, we’re to believe he saved all the money he needed for first class European hotels and private tour guides in Moscow from the non-convertible USMC script he saved. In the summer of 1963, he once again seemed to have enough money to travel abroad to Communist nations.

16. To this day, the CIA claims it never interacted with Oswald, that it didn’t even bother debriefing him after the “defection.” What utter bs....

17. After he “defected” to the Soviet Union in 1959, bragging to U.S. embassy personnel in Moscow that he would tell the Russians everything he knew about U.S. military secrets, he returned to the U.S. without punishment and was then in 1963 given the OK to travel to Cuba and the Soviet Union again!

18. Allen Dulles, the CIA director fired by JFK, and the Warren Commission clearly wanted the truth hidden from the public to protect sources and methods of intelligence agencies such as the CIA. Earl Warren said, “Full disclosure was not possible for reasons of national security.”

19. CIA's Ann Egerter, who worked for J.J. Angleton's Counterintelligence Special Interest Group (CI/SIG), opened a "201" file on Oswald on December 9, 1960.  Egerter testified to the HSCA: "We were charged with the investigation of Agency personnel....”  When asked if the purpose was to "investigate Agency employees," she answered, "That is correct."  When asked, "Would there be any other reason for opening up a file?" she answered, "No, I can't think of one."

20. President Kennedy and the CIA clearly were at war with each other in the weeks immediately before his assassination, as evidenced by Arthur Krock's infamous defense of the Agency in the Oct. 3, 1963 New York Times. It sure looks to me that “Oswald” was the CIA’s pawn.

How do we know that were two U.S. intelligence assets claiming to be “Lee Harvey Oswald?”  Because of the EVIDENCE. It is particularly strong while both were in the Marine Corps, where the two Oswalds were prepared for a false defection of one of them.  One of many obvious proofs of two LHOs in the marines is this: 

While one LHO was in Taiwan (September 14 through October 6 in 1958), the other LHO was in Japan (September 16 through October 6 in 1958).  We know this because medical records for NAS Navy 3835 (Naval Hospital) show numerous entries for visits to the hospital by LHO which were recorded on Sept 16, 20, 22, 23, 29, and Oct 6 while the other LHO was in Taiwan.

To see the documents proving this, CLICK HERE and scroll about ¾ of the way down the page.

Mr. B. can insult me as many times as he wishes, but it won’t make this evidence, and much more like it, go away. Hypothetical questions about the CIA’s “thinking” at the time are just a distraction.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

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. In fact, it is obvious that this is exactly what happened.  How else could “Lee Harvey Oswald” pass a Russian language exam before he even set foot in Russia?  

Oswald got two more questions right than wrong, and got a passing but “poor” grade, in the Russian exam, about the same grade he got in English language exams while in the Marines. As James Norwood wrote on our website:

During his final year in the Marines, Oswald met a woman in California, who was the relative of one of his fellow Marines, Henry J. Roussel, Jr.  At the time, Rosaleen Quinn, the Marine’s aunt, was teaching herself Russian through the Berlitz language system and was interested in conversing with Oswald.  In her Warren Commission deposition, Quinn asserted that “Oswald spoke Russian well.” [12]  When Oswald met Rosaleen Quinn in 1959, he was still in his teens and had completed only the ninth grade.  Yet in Henry Roussel’s deposition for the Warren Commission, he stated that he believed Oswald knew both German and Russian. [13]  By age nineteen and with no documented exposure to Russian culture, Oswald already had proficiency in one of the most challenging components of an extremely difficult language:  conversational Russian.

[12] The Warren Commission Report: Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1964), 685.

[13] Affidavit of Henry J. Roussel Jr. for the Warren Commission (May 25, 1964): http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/roussel.htm.  In October, 1963, Oswald allegedly told Texas employment counselor Laurel Kittrell that he was fluent in three languages.

Does Mr. Bojczuk, along with the Warren Commission, want you to believe that Oswald learned Russian, without the benefit of a classroom, teacher or textbook, by reading Russian newspapers and other Russian literature in his barracks in his spare time with a Russian-English dictionary. Here is an image of a Russian-language newspaper printed in San Francisco:

Could you teach yourself this language in your spare time while you were employed full time by the U.S. Marines?

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?

[John Butler]

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

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?

That's typical Jeremy.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

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?

All the 'Harvey and Lee' talking points Jim keeps regurgitating have been discussed umpteen times, on this forum and elsewhere.

If Jim is genuinely curious about Oswald's knowledge of Russian, and is genuinely prepared to change his mind if he's proved wrong (which I doubt), 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

The matter was also discussed in detail on this forum not too long ago:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26571-oswalds-language-abilities-and-evidence-related-to-his-soviet-sojourn-1959-63/

If Jim has anything new to say on this topic, he should do so on that thread or one of the others that are dedicated to that topic. If he has nothing new to say, he should try to provide straight 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?