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

[Sandy Larsen]

30 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Wilcott knew only that Oswald was a part of the project, and that he got paid for it. What he knew does not contradict any of those things you say it does.

 

30 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Wilcott absolutely did not know anything at all about a doppelganger project and never said a word about such a thing. Once again you are conflating this imaginary government plot with Wilcott's (unsupported) claim that Oswald was in some way utilized by the CIA.

 

And once again you are wrong about something I said.

I never said that Wilcott knew, or even thought, that the Oswald Project had something to do with doppelgangers.

On the contrary, Wilcott shouldn't have known anything about it (other than it existed and that an Oswald got paid for it) given the obvious fact that it was a compartmentalized top secret project.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

31 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Michael, the Kudlaty issue has been debated here multiple times. His assertions are clouded by the fact that he appears to have been coached by Jack White.

 

It appears that way only in your imaginations.

 

[Michael Griffith]

33 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Michael, the Kudlaty issue has been debated here multiple times. His assertions are clouded by the fact that he appears to have been coached by Jack White. This is an interesting read as well from Tracy Parnell's site.

Well, Patoski thought he was credible, even though Patoski approached the subject with scorn and disbelief. 

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 minute ago, Michael Griffith said:

Well, Patoski thought he was credible, even though Patoski approached the subject with scorn and disbelief. 

Good for him for thinking he was credible, but there's ample evidence that undermines his story -- namely, that he never mentioned word one about this until decades later.

[Sandy Larsen]

21 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

... his different heights, etc.

 

Oh yeah, that's an interesting anomaly. Oswald was almost always listed as either 5' 9" of 5' 11", almost never 5' 10". Even in the Marines where his height would have not been self-reported.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

6 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

... but there's ample evidence that undermines [Kudlaty's] story -- namely, that he never mentioned word one about this until decades later.

 

Um... why would he unless someone asked?

 

[Michael Kalin]

On 9/8/2022 at 5:40 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Addendum:  There is a vast array of H&L data described on this original Education Forum thread, extending to over 100 EF pages, and people studying the thread will notice repeated, unsuccessful efforts by W. Tracy Parnell, Greg Parker, and one or two others (e.g., Paul Trejo) to discredit and "debunk" Armstrong's data.  

This so-called "Anti- H&L Hit Squad" fails to debunk almost anything on this original thread, including Armstrong's evidence that the FBI aggressively confiscated records (school, employment, and residential) relating to the Oswald Project almost immediately after JFK's assassination.

So I find it rather odd that some current forum members have repeatedly claimed that Greg Parker, W. Tracy Parnell, et.al., have "debunked" Armstrong's data.

I also noticed that Greg Parker actually referenced the work of the CIA propagandist John McAdams on some of his anti-H&L posts. A big red flag.

There's also a big red herring in the person of Larry Crafard. Any argument that plucks Crafard out of the void and plugs him in as an arbitrary replacement for an LHO sighting doesn't have a leg to stand on. This principle helps ease the way through a brouhaha of a thread.

For example:

Ralph Yates - if he picked up anyone, it was most likely Larry Crafard
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/19762-harvey-and-lee-john-armstrong/page/13/#comment-303722

[Sandy Larsen]

28 minutes ago, Michael Kalin said:

There's also a big red herring in the person of Larry Crafard. Any argument that plucks Crafard out of the void and plugs him in as an arbitrary replacement for an LHO sighting doesn't have a leg to stand on. This principle helps ease the way through a brouhaha of a thread.

For example:

Ralph Yates - if he picked up anyone, it was most likely Larry Crafard
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/19762-harvey-and-lee-john-armstrong/page/13/#comment-303722

 

If anybody wants to see how it is known that Larry Crafard was not a LHO impersonator, you can find out in Armstrong's book. He covers the topic thoroughly.

(I'm not sure why, but Crafard was suspected of being the person running around doing the crazy stuff and using Oswald's name.)

 

[Ken Martinson]

I suggest someone find the descendants of Robert Oswald and Marina Oswald. Get someone to befriend them, take them out for coffee, and then recover the coffee cup with their DNA. Send it to a lab, and see if they are related by DNA.

This will provide the answer that we are looking for.

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Ken Martinson said:

I suggest someone find the descendants of Robert Oswald and Marina Oswald. Get someone to befriend them, take them out for coffee, and then recover the coffee cup with their DNA. Send it to a lab, and see if they are related by DNA.

This will provide the answer that we are looking for.

Huh?

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Ken Martinson said:

I suggest someone find the descendants of Robert Oswald and Marina Oswald. Get someone to befriend them, take them out for coffee, and then recover the coffee cup with their DNA. Send it to a lab, and see if they are related by DNA.

This will provide the answer that we are looking for.

 

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.

 

[Richard Price]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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

Sandy, I don't have a horse in this race and I tend to be skeptical of some of the DNA science, but check out this recent article.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/09/entertainment/eva-larue-stalker-sentenced/index.html

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

In reply to my point that "it's irrational to prefer the far-fetched explanation over the plausible one," Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

Not if you have a mountain of evidence for the so-called far-fetched explanation that has to be neutralized with far-fetched alternative explanations.

You don't have evidence for explanations. You have explanations for evidence. Well, unless you're starting with a pre-conceived conclusion and then hunting for evidence to fit it, of course.

And the alternatives are not far-fetched. That's the point: all of them are more plausible than an explanation that involves a long-term scheme involving two pairs of doppelgangers.

Quote

given a single piece of H&L evidence, often it can attributed to an innocent explanation. The problem is, there is far too much H&L evidence to believably be explained away that way.

The number of neutralised talking points doesn't matter, because:

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 (etc) = 0

What we have to do is discard the neutralised talking points, and base our conclusions on what's left. If there were many H&L talking points without innocent explanations, the quantity might be relevant, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

As far as I can tell, there isn't anywhere near enough un-neutralised H&L evidence to justify belief in something as far-fetched as a long-term scheme that involved the recruitment of two unrelated boys at a young age in the hope that when they grew up they would turn out to look identical or almost identical (not to mention all the other improbable aspects of the theory). 

As Tom Gram (and Carl Sagan and others) pointed out, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In the case of the 'Harvey and Lee' speculation, there doesn't seem to be any. It's just interpretations of ambiguous documents, interpretations of ambiguous photos, and witness statements usually from decades after the supposed event.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

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:

Quote

there is a wide array of evidence of Oswald doppelgangers-- school, medical, residential, and employment records, "Oswald" deployments in the Marines Corps, Oswald's Russian fluency and knowledge of Russian literature, his different heights

There may be a wide array of talking points, but there is remarkably little solid, unambiguous evidence to back them up. If you take Armstrong's (and others') claims in isolation, they might seem impressive, especially to people who are predisposed to believe in improbably large and convoluted conspiracies (cough - 9/11 - cough). But plausible alternative explanations exist for all of them, as far as I can tell.

As I've pointed out, all you need to do is look for those alternative explanations. Has W. Niederhut genuinely made an effort to look for and consider those alternative explanations? I hope he has, but I suspect he has not.

On page 8 I mentioned two of W. Niederhut's talking points that appear to have been neutralised by plausible alternative explanations, and Jonathan and I have even provided him with links so that he could find the relevant arguments. Has he discovered any problems with those arguments? If he hasn't, would he admit that those particular 'Harvey and Lee' talking points have been neutralised?

Incidentally, Greg Parker takes issue with W. Niederhut's claim that Oswald was a "dyslexic high school drop out", among other things:

• https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2621-another-attention-seeker-at-the-13-inch-head-forum-pt-one
• https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2622-another-attention-seeker-at-the-13-inch-head-forum-pt-two
• https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2623-another-attention-seeker-at-the-13-inch-head-forum-pt-three
• https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2624-another-attention-seeker-at-the-13-inch-head-forum-pt-four

That forum is open for membership, if W. Niederhut cares to argue the case with Greg. As far as I'm aware, only one double-doppelganger believer has been brave enough to join, and he didn't last long.

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

That forum is open for membership, if W. Niederhut cares to argue the case with Greg.

 

That would be an unfair debate.

Better to have a Hargrove/Parker debate.

And not just a debate over a single piece of evidence, since multiple explanations can usually be attributed to a single piece. It would have to cover several pieces of evidence to be of any reasonable value.