John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee

[David Josephs]

Morning Bruce...

First off JA did NOT agree that that photo is definitely NOT HARVEY... He does admit it COULD be LEE... and I think your/our argument against it being HARVEY is pretty strong...
only means the labeling on the site is not right... nothing sinister about the use of the photo, that was the photo that was available... and in fact the LAST PHOTO of OSWALD in NOLA public school.

I posted: J[B]ohn A says he believes it is HARVEY even though the yearbook suggests it is LEE - but that the photo has always been of concern to him...[/B]

I am glad that JA and I can agree to agree

JA has not come to that conclusion - yet.
So Bruce, with JA's position understood (I will continue to discuss with him and see if he doesn't consider changing the website and graphic... )
Let's just continue our discussion...

Let's for a second suppose it IS Lee. So what? LEE was at BJSH in the FALL of 1954 when this photo would have been taken.
LEE in 9th grade is not so different looking than HARVEY at this point....

WHO would know that wasn't the same person as the man Ruby killed? No one other than those directly involved.

Can you please associate sinister intent with the publishing of this photo in NOLA... I am missing it.

----

Bruce - Nothing will be forthcoming from JA at this point... There is no way to definitively prove who that is...
but as I say and agree with you.. the support for that being HARVEY is waning.




Please address my reply which I thought illustrated my POV pretty well....

In OCT 1954 LEE was in the 9th grade, not 8th.

You are doing the same thing the FBI did... make his 53-55 BJHS years become '54-'56... which is simply not true...
and there is no visual evidence of Stripling, Easton or Arlington... just copies of copies of school records taken within the first week of the assassination.

JENNER tries it as well... everyone is trying to skip past OSWALD at 14 since they know there is a serious problem with the records... which had already been entered as evidence.

Mr. JENNER - Now, at that time Lee was about 15 years old; is that right?
Mrs. EVANS - He was, somewhere around there--maybe 13 or 14. I don't know exactly.


OCTOBER 1954 is when OSWALD turns 15.... the 53-54 school year and summer is shrouded in mystery.

Did you get a chance to follow the links to the statements about 54-55 by ALL the witnesses where a date is mentioned?
Did you notice the carbon copy nature of these "statements" which were in fact unsigned FBI write-ups of statements...
(you will find that most of the WCR's most valuable "evidence" is unsigned,unsourced, uncorroborated FBI reports)

seeing as JA completely rejects Harvey's presence in New Orleans in the fall of 1954

You are concluding that the PHOTO must be LEE... and I agree with you...

(NOTE: Bruce, I have been taking a fine tooth comb to H&L now for months... this is not a text book although it comes very close to being THE definitive alternate narrative for the assassination
THERE ARE INCONSISTENCIES in the text and in the conclusions... that there are so few in 1000 pages of text, 500mb of files and another 2100 FOLDERS on line is a testament to the man's work)

WOULD you know if they used HARVEY's photo from the year before, taken in the fall/winter of 1953 for this book? No...
---

Yet from all indications and supporting evidence, it appears to be LEE.

I posted images of LEE and HARVEY both in 52/53 and in 59/60...
We talked about a variety of OTHER EVIDENCE that supports the two OSWALDS at various ages...

Let's keep this discussion going and not worry about JA's conclusions at this point.

IF this is LEE, please illustrate the connection to evil intent by them using the most recent publically available photo of OSWALD in NOLA

thanks
DJ