Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE?

[Jim Hargrove]

You guys know my opinion about "Oswald body doubles," not going to rehash.

Wait.... I've been out of the country lately and I'm not getting any younger. Are you saying that "Lee Harvey Oswald" was not impersonated by anyone who at least looked a little like him... EVER... or at least during the years 1963 or 1962? Have you changed your opinion of those biometric comparisons you made a few months ago?

You do not believe there was an LHO as patsy setup during the summer and fall months of 1963???

What's really happened here (IMHO) is that Baker wrote in his initial report the most unusual thing he saw (the guy on the fourth floor) and why he didn't shoot him ('cause Truly vouched for him). It was only later, after Oswald's arrest, that Baker (or someone else) decided that the lunchroom encounter with Oswald was the most unusual thing Baker saw, and the affidavit was re-written to reflect that. The second affidavit would have the benefit (from local law enforcement's POV) of putting the shooter inside the building, and the problems it caused would not be recognized until later.

As Albert points out, the first affidavit would have had the benefit of putting the encounter closer to the so-called "sniper's nest." Why change it?

I think Baker is both being honest (on/about 11/22/63) and not involved with the conspiracy. I think he saw a lot of people he didn't know, and we've heard about 2 of them. (I'm not so trusting when it comes to the "re-enactment" part of Baker's participation.)

This seems to be the crux of Albert's theory, so I'll wait for his response.

Albert asks a good question. My follow up question to that is, which one of Baker's reports went to the WC? I'm guessing only the second one.

You're preaching to the choir, Drew.