John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee

[David Josephs]

Have you read Harvey and Lee, John?

No I haven't but I've followed the many debates about it on various forums and I think I got the jist.

Greg Parker gave examples of how John Armstrong was wrong in many instances.

I do not think Harvey and Lee look much alike at all.

But the photos offered as evidence all look like Oswald to me within reason - close enough for the way we all vary in photos.

Ditto with the two mothers. They are two different women and JA's book proved that to me.

Again, the photos offered as evidence don't show it. There are pictures of old Marguerite that look like young Marguerite. There are ones that don't but she was old and worn, but she still comes through in a number of them.

The interet is full of body double theories which I've looked into over the years (I'm catholic so you'll see my interest).. body doubles of Pope Paul VI, Sister Lucia (of Third secret of Fatima fame)... then we have Paul McCartney, Rudolf Hess.... they are all nonsense when you get down to it.

It's all a bit 1960s pulp spy stories.

Oh John...

Greg Parker uses unsourced and unsigned FBI reports of what witnesses supposedly said to support his arguments against... search the EF for our "discussions" and decide for yourself whether the SOURCE MATERIALS he used constitute reliable evidence of any kind. or are you simply taking his word for it and not bother to look for yourself?

He also focuses on the same WRONG YEARS as the FBI did in his investigation. but hey, as long as the surface images satisfy you and enable you to offer an educated opinion.
===========

There are 900+ pages in H&L, there are 2131 FOLDERS of information in 21 boxes and each folder may contain 2 to 300 pages of information.
There are two rolls of microfilm that were not scanned into the Baylor Archive.

You've NOT read the book and more than likely have never visited the Baylor Archive - which by the way is more extensive and has better copies than the Warren Commission Documents from which the WC cherry-picked what make the "evidence" list. Yet you can offer us your conclusions....

Glad to see a serious "researcher" HERE discounting: 1) reading the book in question and 2) VIEWING any of the MOUNTAIN OF INFORMATION compiled,
all in favor of his gut feelings...

and then having the disrespect to compare the finished work and huge volume of backup information to a pulp spy story... without ever seeing it.

I respectfully submit that you cannot possibly get the "jist" of what the evidence shows from a cursory reading of a few thread and debates....
The author spoke to the witnesses, spent YEARS in the archives and compiled a case from the evidence offered in the WCR - he followed what it suggested...

Other than reading a few threads - what have you done or offered to support your opinions... other than other people's opinions?