Jump to content
The Education Forum

Forum member J. Cohen makes astonishing revelation about Jeremy Bojczuk


Recommended Posts

Denny Zartman writes:

Quote

in my opinion, if Oswald was being impersonated before JFK's presidency as the Hoover memo implies, that is circumstantial evidence supporting the Harvey and Lee theory.

Hoover mentioned "a possibility that an impostor is using Oswald’s birth certificate". The "possibility" was of impersonation by the Soviet authorities, not by any US agencies.

The context is explained in the preceding paragraph of Hoover's memo:

Quote

In that report [by an FBI agent, John Fain] you will note that subject's mother, Mrs. Marguerite C. Oswald, Fort Worth, Texas, advised that she recently received a letter addressed to her son from the Albert Schweitzer College in Switzerland indicating that Lee Oswald was expected at the college on April 20, 1960. She stated subject had taken his birth certificate with him when he left home. She was apprehensive about his safety because three letters she had written him since January 22, 1960, have been returned to her undelivered.

Marguerite Oswald was worried because she hadn't heard from her son, so she got in touch with the FBI. Evidently the combination of Oswald's unconfirmed location and the absence of his birth certificate led to speculation ("a possibility") at FBI HQ.

We know it was no more than speculation because Hoover produced no evidence that anyone was actually using Oswald's birth certificate. As is the way with 'Harvey and Lee' talking points, harmless speculation has been transformed into sinister fact. There's nothing to it.

Tracy Parnell has written a good account of the storm in a teacup about Oswald's birth certificate:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html

The last time this question cropped up, in July 2020, Jim's friend Greg Parker noticed that Jim Hargrove's website was misrepresenting Hoover's memo, claiming that "FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover wrote a memo stating that someone was using Lee Harvey Oswald's birth certificate". Hoover wasn't "stating" it; he merely noted the "possibility".

I hope Jim has got around to correcting that innocent and accidental misrepresentation! Given Armstrong's apparent dishonesty in misleading his readers about the mastoidectomy operation that debunked his theory two decades before his novel was published, Jim needs to fact-check everything Armstrong tells him to put up on the website.

Greg explained the fuss at FBI HQ:

Quote

if you drill down into the free-flowing memos that Hoover was basing his comments on, you will find they trace back to an interview between Kaack and Marguerite in which she advised Lee had taken his birth certificate with him. After that, it turned into to a game of Chinese Whispers concerning Lee and his birth certificate (and the fact that he was at that time "missing"). It all culminated in Hoover's paranoia producing the possibility that someone else might be using the BC, But there was never any justification or basis for that possibility.

(https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209p25-dear-jim#33915)

I dealt with all of this back in 2020:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26529-was-it-really-just-a-mole-hunt-about-oswald/?do=findComment&comment=424554

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a general rule, people do not get impersonated. Consequently, each claim of impersonation needs to be demonstrated. Merely asserting that an impersonation occurred, 'Harvey and Lee'-style, is not good enough.

Given that Oswald was an unremarkable-looking young white man, and that he was the subject of the biggest news story in years, and that news stories often generate false sightings of their central characters, we should expect many such sightings to be mistaken.

For each claim of impersonation, several alternative everyday explanations need to be ruled out:

  • Could it plausibly have been a case of mistaken identity? The 'Oswald' who was seen with Jack Ruby was surely Larry Crafard, another unremarkable-looking young white man.
  • Was the witness reliable? Mary Bledsoe certainly wasn't.
  • Was it actually a sighting of the real, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald?
  • Was the claim of impersonation based on nothing more than a vague suspicion, as we've seen with Hoover's panic about Oswald's birth certificate?

For each claim, innocent explanations must be shown to be less likely than impersonation. Such is the excitement of imagining a huge, all-encompassing conspiracy that some people forget to take this elementary precaution.

The important point is that in each case, it's necessary to demonstrate that impersonation is the most likely explanation. Good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Jim also writes that I have "declined to comment on this in the topic it was posted in".

I'm sorry to disappoint Jim, but I don't hang around here all day with my metaphorical shovel and bucket, waiting for the next steaming pile of 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense to be deposited on the forum. I check the forum most mornings, scribble whatever I feel like scribbling, then I get on with more interesting and productive (and usually non-JFK-related) activities. I very rarely visit this forum more than once a day.

Why did Jim expect an instant reply? Why was he so worked up about something so trivial as what Jonathan and I think about impersonations? Bearing in mind Jim's recent thread in which he seemed to think that the lizard people had been plotting against him to censor his comments, is he feeling OK?

Or was it just an excuse to start yet another 'Harvey and Lee' thread, re-hashing the same old nonsense that has been discussed ad nauseam on numerous other threads?

If he wants to discuss something, he could start by answering the question he has been avoiding. What was the thinking behind the supposed 'Harvey and Lee' project? Why did the masterminds decide to go with a long-term plan involving two pairs of doppelgangers when they had a far simpler solution available?

Again, that simply isn’t true.

J. Cohen made the post indicating “Jeremy and I have always agreed that there is evidence Oswald was impersonated at various points in his life” Thursday, May 5 at 9:40 am.

I called it out about half a day later with this post at Thursday May 5 at 4:37 pm.

With this post, I said, “ Perhaps Mr. B. will tell us, specifically, which times Oswald was impersonated” on Friday, May 6, at 8:16 am.

The next day, after all of that, Mr. B made three lengthy posts a little before 4 am on Saturday, May 6 here, here, and here.  As you can see, none of them mentioned Mr. Cohen’s claim.

Since Mr. B chose not to respond, I started this thread a few hours later, on May 7 at 6:47 am.

This is not a big deal, but it is strange that Mr. B. chooses to misrepresent what happened. I do appreciate him going on the record about his beliefs in possible Oswald impersonations.  That's what I wanted.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Why did Jim expect an instant reply? Why was he so worked up about something so trivial as what Jonathan and I think about impersonations? Bearing in mind Jim's recent thread in which he seemed to think that the lizard people had been plotting against him to censor his comments, is he feeling OK?

Jeremy B. said the above.  The word processor doesn't work correctly on this second post.

Jeremy,

Are the "lizard people" nuanced?  I might as well ask if they are "bonafided".  I've followed Jim's threads for years.  I don't believe I have ever heard him speak of "lizard people".  Are you making that up?  Where's your source for "lizard People"?  Is it the same source where you get your "nuanced" reasoning?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I check the forum most mornings, scribble whatever I feel like scribbling, then I get on with more interesting and productive (and usually non-JFK-related) activities. I very rarely visit this forum more than once a day.

It seems like you follow my posts all day long.  I guess I am mistaken if you just post once a day.  Or, am I?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

100% dead wrong. There's no other way to say this than to point out that your interpretation above is as colossally off-base as the overall "Harvey and Lee" theory. My use of the word "nuance" was meant to distinguish that evidence of Oswald imposture does not mean he was impersonated,

Jonathan and Jeremy,

But, isn't that what evidence is?  Evidence of impersonation does not mean he was impersonated.  Maybe a definition of evidence may clear up the Jeremy's definition of "nuance".

noun
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
verb (used with object), ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest:  He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
to support by evidence:  He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.
 
I don't believe I see the word nuanced anywhere in this definition.  Could it be that Jeremy is just making up things?  
 
Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Given that Oswald was an unremarkable-looking young white man, and that he was the subject of the biggest news story in years, and that news stories often generate false sightings of their central characters, we should expect many such sightings to be mistaken.

For each claim of impersonation, several alternative everyday explanations need to be ruled out:

  • Could it plausibly have been a case of mistaken identity? The 'Oswald' who was seen with Jack Ruby was surely Larry Crafard, another unremarkable-looking young white man.

I wonder how many other unremarkable young white men were in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area.  Thousands?  Tens of thousands?  Because Larry Crafard worked for Jack Ruby, it doesn't mean he resembled Oswald.  They don't look anything alike.  Maybe someone who has poor facial recognition skills would see a Crafard as an Oswald in a dimly lit Carousal lounge.  Actually, Crafard looks more like Robert Patrick in the Terminator then Oswald.

oswald-crawford-ruby-nightclub-tammi-tru

You might as well say the guy behind Crafard is Oswald.  Or, maybe one of the sailors since they are young and white.

As I said Oswald and Crafard do not look alike except as young white males.  Such a description by the Dallas Police I believe was a dragnet call to catch any suspicious young white male.

oswald-crafard-appearance-not-close.jpg

They don't look in anything alike.  Too many people have picked out Harvey Oswald as Lee Harvey Oswald.  The real Lee's photos have been destroyed with the exception of just a few that are relatively un-informing.

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Jeremy claimed I am trying to hide something by posting on a different single issue several times.

I do that for clarity and simplicity.  Short posts are easier to read than longer posts, say Greg Doudna for instance.  Longer posts get boring and confusing after awhile.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

With this post, I said, “ Perhaps Mr. B. will tell us, specifically, which times Oswald was impersonated” on Friday, May 6, at 8:16 am.

The next day, after all of that, Mr. B made three lengthy posts a little before 4 am on Saturday, May 6 here, here, and here.  As you can see, none of them mentioned Mr. Cohen’s claim.

Since Mr. B chose not to respond, I started this thread a few hours later, on May 7 at 6:47 am. 

Either I didn't read the first comment Jim mentions, registering it as a reply to Jonathan, or I did read it and the significance of Jim's question eluded me (asking about impersonations on a thread that had nothing to do with impersonations).

About two hours after I had posted my comments about the bus journey and then departed the forum for the day, Jim made his "We can get back to our usual debates when you answer this question" demand, followed half an hour later by his new thread admonishing me for not replying instantly to that demand.

I didn't discover either of these until I made my daily visit the following morning.* I actually found out about them shortly before that, when I read an email telling me "Just wait until you see Jimbo's new thread!", with warnings about the unfortunate effects of promoting doppelganger-related nonsense unsuccessfully for a quarter of a century.

As is usual with anything to do with 'Harvey and Lee', it's a lot of fuss about nothing.

Anyway, the significance of Jim's question still eludes me. Why was Jim so eager to discover my opinion about when Oswald might have been impersonated? Or was it just an excuse to start another thread of the same old 'Harvey and Lee' spam?

* UK time is 5 to 8 hours ahead of Jim's time zone, depending on where in the US Doppelgangersville is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...