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

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Tony Rose said:

Luis Alvarez.

A typo.  I've mentioned Luis Alvarez previously in the context of discussing the use or academic scientists to perpetuate false narratives.

 

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Addendum:  Tom, regarding Oswald's 1959 defection to the U.S.S.R., John Newman documented a number of curiosities about the government records in the case in his 1995 opus, Oswald and the CIA, including the fact that the CIA waited a year before opening a 201 file on Oswald.

If I recall correctly, J. Edgar Hoover also expressed awareness/concern about an Oswald double.

Then there are the witness accounts of Lee Oswald involved in anti-Castro ops in Florida while "Oswald" was living in Minsk.

Here's a link.

Harvey in Russia... Lee in the USA (harveyandlee.net)

 

[James DiEugenio]

6 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Addendum:  Tom, regarding Oswald's 1959 defection to the U.S.S.R., John Newman documented a number of curiosities about the government records in the case in his 1995 opus, Oswald and the CIA, including the fact that the CIA waited a year before opening a 201 file on Oswald.

If I recall correctly, J. Edgar Hoover also expressed awareness/concern about an Oswald double.

Then there are the witness accounts of Lee Oswald involved in anti-Castro ops in Florida while "Oswald" was living in Minsk.

As Betsy Wolf discovered for the HSCA, someone diverted the Oswald file with the Office of Mail Logistics BEFORE Oswald arrived in Moscow.  This is why there was no 201 file opened on him for 13 months, a clear violation of internal protocol that was deliberate.

BTW, Wolf's remarkable work was classified until about 2003 and opened on a time delay basis due to  the ARRB.

Edited September 7, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Micah Mileto]

19 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

For the record, when Oswald was in the marines he was reading Orwell’s classic Animal Farm.  Bunk mates joked with him because he was clueless that the book was anti-communist in its theme.  So he did not understand a book taught to 9th graders.   Keep that in mind.   

Orwell is just a whiny writer. It's true. Apparently a shill too. I mean, he was on the BBC.

Edited September 7, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Here's a link.

Harvey in Russia... Lee in the USA (harveyandlee.net)

 

The biggest problem I have with H&L is that such an extraordinary theory really needs incontrovertible proof to back it up - otherwise the idea will always be completely taboo with the general public and will actually hurt the credibility of JFK research community a lot more than it helps, and that’s even if Armstrong is correct. 

I have read a few chapters of H&L, along with a lot of the H&L website. I have also read Greg Parker’s book along with several of his essays and forum posts, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with his counterarguments to H&L. Greg’s research on Oswald is meticulous and very compelling, and it’s pretty tough to argue with a plausible evidence-based explanation for anomalies in the record when the alternative is so fantastic, IMO. 

As for Oswald learning Russian, I know high school and college kids who could barely ask to use the bathroom come back fluent in French and Spanish after a single semester abroad. I know Russian is a lot more difficult, but if Oswald had an innate talent, a basic understanding of the language, and dedication, I hardly think it’s impossible for him to become fluent to the point of being able to read and comprehend advanced literature after a period of full immersion.

I have read a couple Dostoevsky novels in English - just because Oswald could read and discuss it doesn’t mean his analysis was any good. Think how many average ass university Russian students have to read Notes from the Underground and give their take on it. 

[Ron Bulman]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

As Betsy Wolf discovered for the HSCA, someone diverted the Oswald file with the Office of Mail Logistics BEFORE Oswald arrived in Moscow.  This is why there was no 201 file opened on him for 13 months, a clear violation of internal protocol that was deliberate.

BTW, Wolf's remarkable work was classified until about 2003 and opened on a time delay basis due to  the ARRB.

Is the question maybe who diverted the file and who ordered them to do so?  Nearer the assassination didn't Angleton control it?  Maybe well before?

[James DiEugenio]

That is a good question.

The likely suspect would be Angleton since he was the one who controlled the Oswald file.

And the place it was diverted to OS, had direct ties to Angleton's operation.

To me, when I saw this material, I was both gratified and angered.

First, because it was an amazing piece of work in and of itself.  I mean, Betsy was at a new frontier as far as Oswald and the CIA went.

I was angered because as far as I could see:

1. Her discoveries never made it into memoranda form, let alone the HSCA report.

2. We had to wait until Newman's book, but yet Wolf's work, in some ways, went beyond Newman. 

If we had had her materials back in 1979, the studies of Oswald would have been much more advanced at an earlier stage.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

W. Niederhut writes:

Quote

Meanwhile, I notice that Jeremy Bojczuk continues to repeat his mantra about Armstrong's Oswald data being "debunked."   Are we supposed to be convinced by his repetition of the claim?

Yes. It is a fact that plausible alternative explanations exist for most or all of the 'Harvey and Lee' talking points that W. Niederhut is tempted to regurgitate uncritically.

Here's the latest talking point:

Quote

If I recall correctly, J. Edgar Hoover also expressed awareness/concern about an Oswald double.

Hoover was concerned about the possible misuse of Oswald's birth certificate by the Soviet authorities. He was suspicious not of hypothetical CIA-funded long-term doppelgangers but of hypothetical Soviet impostors! The Hoover memo does not support the double-doppelganger nonsense at all.

And here's where W. Niederhut can find a detailed, plausible, alternative explanation for this particular 'Harvey and Lee' talking point:

• http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html - Tracy Parnell explains Hoover's memo regarding Oswald's birth certificate
• https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2419-the-mullberry-bush - Greg Parker does the same thing, in response to the last time this talking point came up (it keeps coming up, getting debunked, coming up again, getting debunked again ...)
• https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Oswald_Legend_5.html - Bill Simpich gives the background to Marguerite Oswald's concern about her son, and the response of officialdom

No doubt other online sources exist. None of these sources are difficult to find, at least for anyone who makes the effort. All I've been asking W. Niederhut to do is make this effort, and check for alternative explanations before repeating yet another long-debunked talking point. Again, the links I gave earlier are a good place to start. Those fancy modern search engine things are useful too.

This subject may be new to W. Niederhut, but people have been poking holes in Armstrong and White's work for decades. Take away all the claims for which plausible alternative explanations now exist, and see if there's anything substantial left. As far as I can tell, there isn't.

Edited September 7, 2022 by Jeremy Bojczuk
Changed 'passport' to 'birth certificate'

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is a good question.

The likely suspect would be Angleton since he was the one who controlled the Oswald file.

And the place it was diverted to OS, had direct ties to Angleton's operation.

To me, when I saw this material, I was both gratified and angered.

First, because it was an amazing piece of work in and of itself.  I mean, Betsy was at a new frontier as far as Oswald and the CIA went.

I was angered because as far as I could see:

1. Her discoveries never made it into memoranda form, let alone the HSCA report.

2. We had to wait until Newman's book, but yet Wolf's work, in some ways, went beyond Newman. 

If we had had her materials back in 1979, the studies of Oswald would have been much more advanced at an earlier stage.

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....

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

W. Niederhut writes:

Yes. It is a fact that plausible alternative explanations exist for most or all of the 'Harvey and Lee' talking points that W. Niederhut is tempted to regurgitate uncritically.

 

Jeremy,

     Please stop misrepresenting what I have written.  This is now your third ad hominem smear on this thread. 

     Three strikes and you're out.  

     I don't "regurgitate anything uncritically."  That has never been my approach to science, history, or any subject.

     I have merely raised some questions on this thread, based on recently re-reading John Newman's 1995 opus, Oswald and the CIA, and two John Armstrong articles published in James DiEugenio's The Assassinations anthology.

     I notice that, in addition to repeating your mantra about John Armstrong's Oswald data being "debunked," you also have a tendency to reference the work of Warren Commission Report apologist W. Tracy Parnell.

    Parnell is a guy who has relentlessly promoted Fred Litwin's debunked, "On the Trail of the Delusion," propaganda about Jim Garrison.  Great resource there.

[Jonathan Cohen]

55 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

    Parnell is a guy who has relentlessly promoted Fred Litwin's debunked, "On the Trail of the Delusion," propaganda about Jim Garrison.  Great resource there.

Who cares what he promotes? You started this thread asking for opinions on what happened to the "other" Oswald and the "other" Marguerite, and Tracy's Web site offers reasonable, plausible alternatives to that and every other major "Harvey and Lee" theory and beyond.

[W. Niederhut]

3 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Who cares what he promotes? You started this thread asking for opinions on what happened to the "other" Oswald and the "other" Marguerite, and Tracy's Web site offers reasonable, plausible alternatives to that and every other major "Harvey and Lee" theory and beyond.

      Yeah, sure thing, Jonathan.  Like the "reasonable, plausible alternative" explanation that an autism spectrum disorder might explain a Texas high school drop out's ability to read and discuss Turgenev and Dostoevsky in Russian?   Got it.

     As for Bojczuk's blather about Hoover, do you also deny that Hoover was quite aware of the Oswald doppelganger/imposter in Mexico City in 1963?

    The point I made, in passing, about Hoover after Oswald's defection, is that, even at that time, Hoover expressed concerns about a possible Oswald imposter.  And contrary to Bojczuk's rhetoric, I said nothing about the origin of such a putative doppelganger.

[Denis Morissette]

The world had enough of one Marguerite. No need to have two.

[Jonathan Cohen]

31 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

      Yeah, sure thing, Jonathan.  Like the "reasonable, plausible alternative" explanation that an autism spectrum disorder might explain a Texas high school drop out's ability to read and discuss Turgenev and Dostoevsky in Russian?   Got it.

     As for Bojczuk's blather about Hoover, do you also deny that Hoover was quite aware of the Oswald doppelganger/imposter in Mexico City in 1963?

    The point I made, in passing, about Hoover after Oswald's defection, is that, even at that time, Hoover expressed concerns about a possible Oswald imposter.  And contrary to Bojczuk's rhetoric, I said nothing about the origin of such a putative doppelganger.

Yes. The notion that Oswald may have had enhanced auditory-based language learning abilities is much more plausible than a secret government program involving doppelgangers.

I've never denied Hoover referenced a possible Oswald imposter in Mexico City, as this is a matter of record. I trust you'd agree this has absolutely nothing to do with a secret government program involving doppelgangers. Again, you were the one that started this thread by asking what happened to said Oswald and Marguerite doppelgangers, and then went on to express your belief that there were indeed multiple Marguerites. Are you now saying you don't believe there were long-term doppelgangers, but rather just someone impersonating Oswald?

[Sandy Larsen]

15 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

The biggest problem I have with H&L is that such an extraordinary theory really needs incontrovertible proof to back it up - otherwise the idea will always be completely taboo with the general public...

 

The biggest problem you have with the H&L theory is the same problem Warren Commission apologists have with JFK conspiracy theories. But that doesn't stop us from seeking the truth.

 

15 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

... and will actually hurt the credibility of JFK research community a lot more than it helps, and that’s even if Armstrong is correct. 

 

And therefore we should disbelieve the theory, despite the enormous amount of circumstantial evidence for it? And always accept alternative explanations for the evidence, even when it's quite a stretch and sometimes even ridiculous? And mock the theory as well as the theorists who believe it? Always try to shut the conversation down?

Well that is what the vocal anti-H&L people do. They are even worse than the Warren Commission apologists.