Theorist shamers should be ashamed of themselves.

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

So what make the Mormon Mafia explanation of the JFKA not worthy, but the two LHOs tale worthy?

 

Is somebody stopping you from advocating this theory?

If you wish to refute it, then I don't see the point given that nobody here is advocating it.

There is no such thing as a "Mormon Mafia" other than a name somebody gave to a group of men buying up property for Howard Hughes. They just happened to be Mormons, like many or most of his employees were.

So there might be a problem with tying this to the Mormons, as that might be considered to be anti-Mormon thing.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

I wanted to wrap up the documents on Oswald’s simultaneous appearances 1400 miles apart in Japan and Taiwan by referring once more to Tom Gram’s post in which he suspected the sail date for Oswald’s ship to the South China Sea area was August 29, 1958 instead of the date we used, which was Sept. 14, 1958.  Tom made a good case, but the bulk of the evidence supports our date of 9/14.

For example, p. 684 of the WC Report states:

On September 14, Oswald sailed with his unit for the South China Sea area; the uni was at Ping Tung, North Taiwan on September 30, and returned to Atsugi on October 5. [361]

Endnote 361 referred to this document:

Unless Tom has more information, I’m going with our original date of Sept. 14, 1958, but whether we use Tom’s date or the WC’s, there is just no way one Oswald could have appeared all those times at the hospital in Japan throughout the second half of September while he was in Taiwan and sailing the 1400 miles back and forth (a total of 2800 miles).

[Jim Hargrove]

15 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Do you have any accounts of people simultaneously seeing or meeting both HLO/LHOs? 

That is, the two were seen together in the same room?

Or somebody said, "Oh, he must one of the Oswald twins."

I wanted to give Ben another person who met both Oswalds.  A Texas Employment Commission interviewer named Laura Kittrell met two men who both said they were Lee Harvey Oswald and talked to each in her office.  Ms. Kittrell said the two Oswalds "were much alike in size, shape and outline, generally, there was a marked difference between them in bearing and manner."

Shown below is the bottom of page 8 and the top of page 9 of a ten-page July 18, 1978 memo from the HSCA's Gaeton Fonzi to Blakey.

To read more about Ms. Kittrell's encounter with both Oswald, click the link below.

https://harveyandlee.net/Kittrell/Kittrell.htm

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Amazing evidence, Jim.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

We think there were quite a few people who knew both Oswalds, a condition which seemed to be extremely bad for their healths.  One critical witness was Ed Voebel, who knew Harvey in the 8th grade and Lee in the 9th at Beauregard JHS in New Orleans.

If you want to understand John A’s extended take on Voebel, go to this page, search for Voebel, and read the paragraphs that mention him:

https://harveyandlee.net/Early/Early.html

Ed Voebel died at the Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans in May 1971 at the age of 32.  Voebel's father said that his son, healthy one day and dead the following day, died under mysterious circumstances.  He told the House Select Committee on Assassinations that he thought his son's death had something to do with Oswald and the JFK assassination, but he had no proof.  

OK. I am disputing nothing

But---the answer to the question is, in the military, no one ever testified that they saw the two Oswalds together, in the same room (or field operation, etc.).

So the two Oswalds worked in relatively near proximity for a while in the military, but as far as witnesses knew, the two never crossed paths? 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Before this thread degenerates into yet another H&L copy-and-paste spamathon, could I ask Sandy whether he agrees with my definition of 'far-fetched'?

We should judge what's far-fetched and what isn't far-fetched according to what a reasonable, intelligent member of the public would think, shouldn't we? A member of the public who has no preconceived ideas about the assassination, and who measures claims by comparing them with his or her idea of how the world works.

Sandy raised the question of far-fetched claims when he created this thread, so he must have an opinion about how we should define the term.

If Sandy thinks that our hypothetical member of the public's judgement isn't the correct yardstick, what alternative would he propose?

[Sandy Larsen]

26 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

We should judge what's far-fetched and what isn't far-fetched according to what a reasonable, intelligent member of the public would think, shouldn't we?

 

Everybody can decide for themselves what is and isn't farfetched. That is not the point.

The point is that it is wrong to shame people for what they believe. The evidence will ultimately decide whether their theory has any merit or not. Presenting evidence that supports or undermines it is the proper, non-evil way of handling unusual theories.

 

[Pamela Brown]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Everybody can decide for themselves what is and isn't farfetched. That is not the point.

The point is that it is wrong to shame people for what they believe. The evidence will ultimately decide whether their theory has any merit or not. Presenting evidence that supports or undermines it is the proper, non-evil way of handling unusual theories.

 

Well said, Sandy.

Everyone should have a chance to present what they think to be valid. It is up to them to persuade us to agree with their position...

We can agree-to-disagree and move on if we are not won over with what is being presented...

 

 

Edited January 19 by Pamela Brown

[Sean Coleman]

6 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

Well said, Sandy.

Everyone should have a chance to present what they think to be valid. It is up to them to persuade us to agree with their position...

We can agree-to-disagree and move on if we are not won over with what is being presented...

 

 

Agreed. Even Marjan and his Hickey theory gets airtime.

Might dust off my ‘ice bullet from the sewer’ theory if there’s a timeout from ridicule…

[Pamela Brown]

9 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

Agreed. Even Marjan and his Hickey theory gets airtime.

Might dust off my ‘ice bullet from the sewer’ theory if there’s a timeout from ridicule…

Indeed they do.

My best research colleague whom I met in 1988 believes the 'driver-did-it' theory.  I thought that was ridiculous, though I respected where he was at.

When I researched that theory and wrote to the JFK Library I uncovered evidence of a second windshield that had originally been installed in SS100X (though not present on 11.22.63).

http://ss100x.com/LIMO1961.jpg

So we never know what advances may be made even by a theory that may seem 'farfetched'...

Edited January 19 by Pamela Brown

[Jim Hargrove]

13 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

OK. I am disputing nothing

But---the answer to the question is, in the military, no one ever testified that they saw the two Oswalds together, in the same room (or field operation, etc.).

So the two Oswalds worked in relatively near proximity for a while in the military, but as far as witnesses knew, the two never crossed paths? 

Yes, that seems like a fair statement in general, but I think it was entirely planned that way.  This was an intelligence operation designed to give a Russian speaking youth the identity of an American-born Southerner.  The Russian-speaking Oswald needed experiences that matched as closely as possible the experiences of the American-born Oswald so that, when questioned by Soviet authorities, the foreign-born young man could answer reasonably as if he was his native-born counterpart.

In the USMC, the two Oswalds were sometimes stationed close to one another, but among entirely different troops.  For example, in 1958, American-born Lee Oswald was stationed at the USMC air station at El Toro, California, while Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald was at the air facility in Santa Ana, just seven miles away.

There was also an attempt to give Harvey just limited time in the Marines, probably to avoid as much as possible the chances of entanglement with Lee, either on paper or in person.  Although the Warren Commission told us that Oswald worked briefly at Pfisterer Dental Lab in New Orleans in 1956, he actually was there for a longer period of time, in 1957 and 1958, while the other Oswald was still in the Marines.  Palmer McBride, William Wulf, and Pfisterer president Linda Faircloth all confirmed the 1957-1958 dates, Ms. Faircloth in a filmed YouTube interview with John A.
 

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Before this thread degenerates into yet another H&L copy-and-paste spamathon, 

This is NOT  “another H&L copy-and-paste spamathon….” 

For example, in my first post near the top of this page, the WC images had never appeared on HarveyandLee.net until just a few minutes before I made the post, when I uploaded the graphics to a special directory I keep there just for posts here. To get the WCR image, I opened up the Warren Report on my computer, found the Taiwan reference, saved a screen shot of the page, cropped the image, and then uploaded it to the H&L directory so I could show it here.

I work hard on these posts, and your incessant insults are usually both untrue and entirely predictable. Sandy is right.  You indulge in Harvey and Lee “shaming” whenever possible.  What could be more obvious?

Edited January 19 by Jim Hargrove

[Sandy Larsen]

I'm not bothered at all if Jim wants to repost some of his evidence here, for the newbie members. I've made my point with the thread, and if it wanders off in some direction I'd rather it be H&L stuff since that is what has gotten shamed more than anything else during my time  on the forum.

 

[Tom Gram]

17 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I wanted to wrap up the documents on Oswald’s simultaneous appearances 1400 miles apart in Japan and Taiwan by referring once more to Tom Gram’s post in which he suspected the sail date for Oswald’s ship to the South China Sea area was August 29, 1958 instead of the date we used, which was Sept. 14, 1958.  Tom made a good case, but the bulk of the evidence supports our date of 9/14.

For example, p. 684 of the WC Report states:

On September 14, Oswald sailed with his unit for the South China Sea area; the uni was at Ping Tung, North Taiwan on September 30, and returned to Atsugi on October 5. [361]

Endnote 361 referred to this document:

Unless Tom has more information, I’m going with our original date of Sept. 14, 1958, but whether we use Tom’s date or the WC’s, there is just no way one Oswald could have appeared all those times at the hospital in Japan throughout the second half of September while he was in Taiwan and sailing the 1400 miles back and forth (a total of 2800 miles).

What’s the source for CE1961? It looks like a report prepared after the assassination. If the source for that report is the same document you originally posted, the author(s) likely made the same mistake of using the document date instead of the actual listed embarkment date. That original, primary source military document states unambiguously that the ship embarked on 8/29/58. If not in the actual exhibit, there should be memos etc. on how and why CE1961 was prepared, and what documents they used as sources. 

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

What’s the source for CE1961? It looks like a report prepared after the assassination. If the source for that report is the same document you originally posted, the author(s) likely made the same mistake of using the document date instead of the actual listed embarkment date. That original, primary source military document states unambiguously that the ship embarked on 8/29/58. If not in the actual exhibit, there should be memos etc. on how and why CE1961 was prepared, and what documents they used as sources. 

Check it HERE to see if you agree, but it looks to me like CE 1961 was prepared by the Department of Defense in response to a May 19, 1964 letter from the WC's J. Lee Rankin.  Seems a little tough to believe that DoD personnel did not know how to read the documents they were reporting on.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Check it HERE to see if you agree, but it looks to me like CE 1961 was prepared by the Department of Defense in response to a May 19, 1964 letter from the WC's J. Lee Rankin.  Seems a little tough to believe that DoD personnel did not know how to read the documents they were reporting on.

 

To me it looks like 8/29/58 refers to the date printed on a schedule authorization letter.  9/14/58 refers to the diary/scheduled date. (i.e. the date the Skagit embarks.) Then any exceptions to that date are specified on the diary page. For example, USS Catamount was scheduled to leave the base on 9/5/58 instead of the 9/14/58 diary date.

Note that the 9/5/58 entry lists the number of officers and enlisted men who left the Skagit early and embarked on USS Catamount instead.