22-05-2010, 09:24 PM
Jack,
Does this mean that certain oddities I have discovered in HARVEY &
LEE are not oddities, after all? Such as claiming that Alan Dulles was
so successful in protecting the CIA that the name of the CIA does not
appear in the index to the 26 volumes--which has only a name index,
while the 888-page WARREN REPORT, which has an index, includes
dozens of entries about the CIA? Or a few pages further, when John
suggests that the FBI had issued its report about the assassination
two weeks before the Warren Commission was created, which took
place on 29 November 1963? Does that mean these are not errors?
Or, more significantly, does this mean that he was also correct when
he reported that "Lee" lost a tooth at Beauregard Junior High School,
which is one of the differences between "Harvey" and "Lee", and yet
Lillian Murret, who was "Harvey"'s aunt, paid for "Lee"'s dental work?
Which led you to speculate that Lillian and Dutz, Robert, Marina, and
even Marguerite ALL KNEW THERE WERE TWO OSWALDS, although
none of them has ever uttered a peep about it? And that, while you
are emphatic toward everyone else that the must DOCUMENT their
arguments, here you have a whopper for which there is no evidence?
And while I hate to disturb the euphoria that emerges here when his
name appears, has none of you considered that, in order to prove the
existence of "two Oswalds", John and Jack would actually have had to
prove the existence of THREE, since, as Lee told Judyth on more than
one occasion, the agency was creating a false history for him so that
he could return to a norma life. Unless they separated the life of the
real "Harvey" from the life of the fictitious "Harvey", it is surely more
reasonable to infer that the fictional history has been mistaken for a
real history in the absence of any effort to differentiate between them.
John has made a dignified statement, but that does not show his theory
is true. And there are many other indications that evidence that has
been take to support the theory of "two Oswalds"--such as alleged eye-
color difference, alleged difference in height supported by photographs)
and other alleged differences in their appearance--are not difficult to be
shown to be mistaken or unjustifiable. So while I certainly agree that
John and Jack have done a marvelous job of compiling documents and
other records, I cannot support the enthusiasm for this theory, which,
for reasons I have addressed and other other grounds that I am going
to address subsequently, the "two Oswalds" appears to be overblown
and, in all probably, represents a bold conflation of facts with fiction.
Jim
Does this mean that certain oddities I have discovered in HARVEY &
LEE are not oddities, after all? Such as claiming that Alan Dulles was
so successful in protecting the CIA that the name of the CIA does not
appear in the index to the 26 volumes--which has only a name index,
while the 888-page WARREN REPORT, which has an index, includes
dozens of entries about the CIA? Or a few pages further, when John
suggests that the FBI had issued its report about the assassination
two weeks before the Warren Commission was created, which took
place on 29 November 1963? Does that mean these are not errors?
Or, more significantly, does this mean that he was also correct when
he reported that "Lee" lost a tooth at Beauregard Junior High School,
which is one of the differences between "Harvey" and "Lee", and yet
Lillian Murret, who was "Harvey"'s aunt, paid for "Lee"'s dental work?
Which led you to speculate that Lillian and Dutz, Robert, Marina, and
even Marguerite ALL KNEW THERE WERE TWO OSWALDS, although
none of them has ever uttered a peep about it? And that, while you
are emphatic toward everyone else that the must DOCUMENT their
arguments, here you have a whopper for which there is no evidence?
And while I hate to disturb the euphoria that emerges here when his
name appears, has none of you considered that, in order to prove the
existence of "two Oswalds", John and Jack would actually have had to
prove the existence of THREE, since, as Lee told Judyth on more than
one occasion, the agency was creating a false history for him so that
he could return to a norma life. Unless they separated the life of the
real "Harvey" from the life of the fictitious "Harvey", it is surely more
reasonable to infer that the fictional history has been mistaken for a
real history in the absence of any effort to differentiate between them.
John has made a dignified statement, but that does not show his theory
is true. And there are many other indications that evidence that has
been take to support the theory of "two Oswalds"--such as alleged eye-
color difference, alleged difference in height supported by photographs)
and other alleged differences in their appearance--are not difficult to be
shown to be mistaken or unjustifiable. So while I certainly agree that
John and Jack have done a marvelous job of compiling documents and
other records, I cannot support the enthusiasm for this theory, which,
for reasons I have addressed and other other grounds that I am going
to address subsequently, the "two Oswalds" appears to be overblown
and, in all probably, represents a bold conflation of facts with fiction.
Jim
Jack White Wrote:Jack,
At the appropriate time, please inform forum members as follows:
My main purpose for writing Harvey and Lee was first and foremost
to make some of my documentation, interviews, photos, etc.
available to fellow researchers. My hope was that researchers could
use these documents and information to supplement and expand
their own work and someday solve the JFK mystery.
My second purpose in writing the book was to link documents together
that appear to show that a young Russian-speaking boy assumed the
name and identity of American-born Lee Harvey Oswald. The original
purpose (1950's) was to allow the Russian-speaking boy to assume the
identity, background, birth, and family records of the real LHO (with
full knowledge of Oswald family members). Then, after serving in the
US Marine Corps, the Russian-speaking "Oswald" (Harvey) could
"defect" to the Soviet Union where his ability to speak and understand
Russian would give him the opportunity to spy for the CIA.
My third purpose in writing the book was to link documents together
that appear to show that American born Lee Oswald was used to
impersonate the "patsy" (Harvey) in the months leading up to
November 22 and help frame him for the assassination (at the
direction of the CIA).
Finally, it has never been my interest nor my desire to try and
convince anyone that my analysis of the documents (Harvey
and Lee) is correct. It is and continues to be my desire to provide
access to my entire collection of documents in order to help
researchers and allow them to form their own conclusions.
Accordingly, I have loaned my entire collection of documents
(over 100,000 items) to Baylor University so that all documents
could be copied and made available online as well as at Baylor's
Penn Jones Collection Library to people interested in the assassination.
John
