Question About Harvey, Lee, and the "Two Marguerites"

[Michael Kalin]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Better to have a Hargrove/Parker debate.

No need. It already happened. See the thread referenced by the OP. Hargrove/Josephs put Parker to rout. Negativity didn't pull him through.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/19762-harvey-and-lee-john-armstrong

Warning -- it's long, exhausting, repetitious & at times inscrutable. Unless Parker has something sensible to bring to the discussion, no point in concatenating another round of bluster.

Meanwhile, patiently waiting to find out what price you have to pay to get out of going through all these things twice...

[W. Niederhut]

11 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

In our latest instalment of let's make extraordinary claims but not bother to provide extraordinary evidence, W. Niederhut has filled in his 'Harvey and Lee' talking-point bingo card:

 

What "extraordinary claims" have I made, Bojczuk?  Do tell.

I have merely asked some questions about Armstrong's H&L research, and pointed out that the Education Forum debates on the subject of Armstrong's research do not support your extraordinary claim that Armstrong's data has been "debunked."

This is now the fourth time on this thread that you have misquoted me, while engaging in ad hominem attacks in an attempt to frame this discussion about the Oswald Project as a debate about a forum member asking questions about Armstrong's Oswald Project data.

I have clarified that issue, repeatedly, to no avail.

Under the circumstances, I am going to submit a formal complaint to the Education Forum administrators about your ad hominem posts.

I am not the subject of this thread.

Edited September 11, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Michael Kalin said:

No need. It already happened. See the thread referenced by the OP. Hargrove/Josephs put Parker to rout. Negativity didn't pull him through.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/19762-harvey-and-lee-john-armstrong

Warning -- it's long, exhausting, repetitious & at times inscrutable. Unless Parker has something sensible to bring to the discussion, no point in concatenating another round of bluster.

Meanwhile, patiently waiting to find out what price you have to pay to get out of going through all these things twice...

Stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis blues again, eh? 🤪

[Ken Martinson]

On 9/9/2022 at 8:57 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

This article explains why what you want to do can't really be done. The test is available but it is unreliable.

Plus, I don't think that drinking from a mug would leave sufficient DNA.

 

Since LHO did not have a son, it does make DNA testing less accurate.

Thanks for the update.

[Ken Martinson]

See the section 'Debunking the "Harvey and Lee" theory'

http://22november1963.org.uk/john-armstrong-harvey-and-lee-theory

Plus, LHO's mother lived for 18 years after 1963, and NOT ONE of her relatives thought that she was a different person?

[Sandy Larsen]

45 minutes ago, Ken Martinson said:

Plus, LHO's mother lived for 18 years after 1963, and NOT ONE of her relatives thought that she was a different person?

 

That's because the real Marguerite and her real son, LEE Oswald, stayed in contact with their relatives and their relatives just figured it was a coincidence that they shared the same names as HARVEY Oswald (the one shot by Ruby) and his (fake) mother.

Though the real-LHO's uncle Charles and aunt Lillian do require some explanation because they testified before the Warren Commission about the fake-LHO and Marguerite, as though they they were related. Those two had to have known about the doppelganger scheme, just as Robert did.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

51 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

That's because the real Marguerite and her real son, LEE Oswald, stayed in contact with their relatives and their relatives just figured it was a coincidence that they shared the same names as HARVEY Oswald (the one shot by Ruby) and his (fake) mother.

Though the real-LHO's uncle Charles and aunt Lillian do require some explanation because they testified before the Warren Commission about the fake-LHO and Marguerite, as though they they were related. Those two had to have known about the doppelganger scheme, just as Robert did.

 

What a laughable post. This type of logic is exhibit A for why "Harvey and Lee" is viewed with ridicule by the larger Kennedy assassination research community.

[Ron Bulman]

I don't think it's viewed with ridicule by the larger research community.  It's a realistic possibility at least parts of it might be true.  Much of it with documentation.

[Karl Hilliard]

I could be wrong but there seems to have been estrangement en masse in that family after the assassination weekend and the burial of LHO. Marina took the kids and went her separate way.... Did John Pic ever come to Texas? How many times did brother Robert visit Mom? Did Marguerite ever see any of her grand-children?...Any of them ever come and visit her for birthdays and Christmas? Sandy mentioned the sister and brother in law... did they ever come to Texas? Were pictures taken and memories shared etc? One exception would have been the exhuming at the Michael Eddowes' inquiry. Marina, Robt Oswald and who all else showed up for that? 

 

 

 

[David Lifton]

On 9/7/2022 at 2:02 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

The more one learns about the HSCA...some good staff people, but somehow the work gets derailed....

We have seen plenty on plants in Garrison's staff...but what about the HSCA?

Much as Robert Blakey was a decent fellow, he was bamboozled somewhat into making the HSCA into a mob-hunt, is my estimation. 

Blakey's looking at JBC's enlarged (due to surgical debriding of dead flesh) back wound and saying that proves there was a tumbling bullet is beneath contempt.

What about the small round hole in the back of JBC's shirt?

Bit of a puzzle, no? 

Blakey may have been an excellent legislative lawyer, but as a detective....

 

 

I had one or two detailed conversations with Robert Blakey at the time of the HSCA investigation; one, on the phone, for over an hour.  Blakey had a hopelessly flawed vision of Dallas as a consequence of his "mob did it" biases -- which were more or less a fixation. (IMHO,  Blakey was not "bamboozled."  Rather, he was self-deceived).  I found Blakey to be a very obstinate, stubborn, close-minded person when it came to Dallas.  He was a prisoner of his own serious biases, and his own pet hypotheses about the mob.  As a consequence, Robert Blakey squandered an important opportunity to get to the bottom of JFK's murder.  DSL (9/12/22; 1:40 AM PDT)

Edited September 12, 2022 by David Lifton
Clarification.

[Benjamin Cole]

16 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

I had one or two detailed conversations with Blakey at the time of the HSCA investigation  He had a hopelessly flawed vision of Dallas as a consequence of his "mob did it" biases -- which were more or less a fixation.  I found Prof. Blakey to be a very obstinate, stubborn close-minded person when it came to Dallas.  He was a prisoner of his own biases; and. as a consequence, blew a serious opportunity to get to the bottom of JFK's murder.  DSL (9/12/22; 1:20 AM PDT)

DL-

 

Thanks for your post, which confirms my biases...but hard to read it in  other way. 

Later in life Blakey realized he had been used, and began to talk about Eladio Del Valle and Herminino Diaz as suspects, and that the CIA could not be trusted.  

And my original question stands---did intel agencies have plants on the HSCA staff? Of course, the whole railroading of Richard Sprague smells to high heaven....

 

 

[David Lifton]

3 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

DL-

 

Thanks for your post, which confirms my biases...but hard to read it in  other way. 

Later in life Blakey realized he had been used, and began to talk about Eladio Del Valle and Herminino Diaz as suspects, and that the CIA could not be trusted.  

And my original question stands---did intel agencies have plants on the HSCA staff? Of course, the whole railroading of Richard Sprague smells to high heaven....

 

 

Re your statement:  "Later in life Blakey realized he had been used." 

No.  I don't believe  Blakey was "used."  I met him. He was not dumb.  I talked to him, at length.  Prof. Blakey was a stubborn man of limited ability who simply could not see beyond his "mob did it" hypothesis. In conversations that I had with both him(and attorney Andrew Purdy, the "Arlen  Specter" of the HSCA investigation), I laid out the particulars -- that this (Dallas) was a "body-centric" plot.  That the body --i.e., JFK's body, i.e., his wounds -- were altered to provide the legal basis for a false story of the crime.  Two shots from behind; LHO did it, etc.  Blakey simply didn't believe it --or couldn't.  I do not propose to satisfactory explain why Blakey behaved (or believed) as he did.  I can only report my own experience.   Dealing with Robert Blakey was like trying to explain the motion of the planets to someone who didn't, or couldn't, believe in gravity.  (DSL, 9/12/22, 2 AM PDT)

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Ron Bulman writes:

Quote

It's a realistic possibility at least parts of it might be true.

The problem is that the parts of it that might be true (basically, the impersonations of Oswald in the run-up to the assassination) can be explained without requiring a very implausible long-term double-doppelganger scheme.

That very implausible long-term double-doppelganger scheme is the essence of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory. On the basis of the evidence that's been put forward up to now, it isn't a realistic possibility. It's just a far-fetched idea that makes critics of the lone-nut theory look like a bunch of cranks.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

That would be an unfair debate.

Better to have a Hargrove/Parker debate.

I wasn't suggesting a formal debate, merely that W. Niederhut might want to ask his questions on Greg Parker's forum, and see how far he gets.

Mind you, a Hargrove/Parker debate is something I'd pay to watch. Jim was in fact invited to participate in such a debate some time ago, but didn't take up the offer, for some reason.

As it happens, I have it on good authority that Greg would be happy to have a one-on-one debate here if Jim or anyone else is unwilling to venture into the dangerous territory of ROKC. It would need to involve the two participants only, with up to three moderators: one pro-H&L, one anti-H&L, and one independent. His membership would need to be reactivated for this debate, and then could be removed.

It's an interesting idea, isn't it? Is there a 'Harvey and Lee' enthusiast who is up to the challenge?

Quote

multiple explanations can usually be attributed to a single piece [of evidence].

Correct. As I keep pointing out, the evidence put forward by the H&L believers has both a far-fetched (long-term double-doppelganger scheme) explanation and a number of plausible (no long-term double-doppelganger scheme) explanations. We are obliged to choose the latter.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

W. Niederhut writes:

Quote

I have merely asked some questions about Armstrong's H&L research, and pointed out that the Education Forum debates on the subject of Armstrong's research do not support your extraordinary claim that Armstrong's data has been "debunked."

I have pointed out, several times now, that there are plenty of threads on this forum (and elsewhere) in which H&L claims have been countered by more plausible explanations of the evidence. In other words, those claims have indeed been debunked.

I've even given an example, a thread which Jonathan first brought to W. Niederhut's attention:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26571-oswalds-language-abilities-and-evidence-related-to-his-soviet-soujourn-1959-63/page/7/

Has W. Niederhut bothered to read pages 7 onwards of that thread? He gives no indication of having done so. Or perhaps he has read it, and can't find any problems with the arguments presented there.

If that's the case, a central element of the double-doppelganger fantasy has been debunked. Can we assume that W. Niederhut agrees that that element has been debunked?

Quote

I am going to submit a formal complaint to the Education Forum administrators about your ad hominem posts.

I recall the thin-skinned James Norwood repeatedly complaining to the moderators about those who dared to question the 'Harvey and Lee' cult's holy doctrine.

Once W. Niederhut has done his complaining, perhaps he could do more than simply repeat 'Harvey and Lee' talking points, and deal with the criticisms that have been made of those talking points. He could start by dealing with the thread I mentioned earlier. Has he found any problems with the arguments presented in that thread? If he hasn't, will he admit that that particular element of the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy has been debunked?