The FB Harvey and Lee Group

First topic message reminder :

I was kicked out of the group for heresy. They are now free to attack me without the worry of direct reply.

Fact is, they don't like questions any more than Armstrong does. Which is why he has the caveat he will answer questions only if the person asking has read his book. He knows very well I have not read it, so it gives him an "out" in answering anything.

Here is "Curt Jester" after my dismissal: 

I think Dawn was correct, in why trust someone who hasn't read the bk t be 'looked at'? Greg and company should have a problem with witness testimony ala Ed Voebel a friend who snapped the photo and commented on the pic rather than 'seeing' what's in the pic, doesn't one think. Simply one can go further on other topics on this online H & L menu and see other medical anomolies that differentiate the two as well. Why didn't he go into that? All too telling, IMO.http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/books/Armstrong/Tooth/Tooth.htm

What "Curt" is ignoring is that I had already pointed out Voebel was not all that confident about the damage Oswald had inflicted upon him by the other boy.

Here is Voebel: Mr. VOEBEL. 

Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out.

Each step of the way, Voebel was offering qualified testimony which Armstrong miraculously parleyed into hard fact. 

He produced this magical feat by totally ignoring a witness who offered no such qualifications - Bennierita Smith.

Here is Mrs Smith's testimony: 

Mrs. SMITH. One fight really impressed me, I guess because there was this boy--he wasn't going to Beauregard, this boy he had the fight with, and he was a little guy. I think his name was Robin Riley. He hit Lee, and his tooth came through his lip. 
Mr. LIEBELER. Through the upper part of his lip? 
Mrs. SMITH. Oh, gee, I don't know whether it was a bottom---- 
Mr. LIEBELER. But it actually tore the lip? 
Mrs. SMITH. Yes; it actually tore the lip


So "Curt" is correct. I do have a problem with Voebel's testimony. But even MORE-SO with Armstrong's preference for Voebel's testimony over Smith's.

The other sleight of hand used by Armstrong is showing a heavily cropped photo of Oswald in class taken by Voebel - allegedly after this fight. 

Here is Armstrong on this:-

Ed Voebel's Warren Commission testimony that Lee Harvey Oswald lost a tooth while in the ninth grade at Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans is pretty hard to refute, because in November 1954 Voebel snapped a photo of young Lee Harvey Oswald showing off his missing front tooth

Let's start with clearing up what Ed testified to. He testified to THINKING that Oswald lost a tooth and cut his lip. We know from Bennierita that the only thing that happened was that the tooth went through the lip. Her version is supported by the autopsy report which refers to a scar on the lip. It does not support Armstrong. But that's okay. Armstrong just claims that this is further proof of his goofy theory.

Now let's move on to the photo itself. Armstrong claims the very reason for the photo being snapped was for Oswald to show off "his missing front tooth". Which is demonstrably utter bullshit. If that was the reason for the photo, it follows that Voebel would remember with far more clarity than he apparently did that "Oswald got a tooth knocked". The photo itself would act as a memory jog. 

It is also problematic for Armstrong's claim that the photo was by no means  a close up. It was a wide shot showing most of the class. 
  


If this shot was supposed to show a missing tooth, it failed miserably.

In order to make the point, Armstrong had to have Oswald's face blown up. I'm no photo expert, but I do know that blowing up a photo that maybe not of great quality to start with, is going to increase any and all faults, hairs, spots etc. Here is the blow-up:
 


Anyone who claims that definitely shows a missing tooth is just kidding themselves. It could be a fat lip covering the tooth. It could be a speck of dirt from the negative. Any number of things might account for it. 

But NOTHING will account for why a shot specifically taken (according to Armstrong) to show a missing tooth, does not in fact show that  -  unless blown up and all other possible explanations are ignored.

So "Curt" can agree with Dawn all he likes. Saying I have no right to comment without reading the book first is just a convenient way for this group of acolytes to avoid facts that are antithetic to their beliefs.

Faith holds them together. It sure as hell isn't facts. 
https://www.facebook.com/groups/212288358867993/

Since the H & L FB crew are loving the attention, I'm happy to give 'em a bit more.

From one of their posts:

 

Posted by Ms Bragg

and to which Dawn Meredith replied:

"This is Lee, not Harvey."

to which Ms Bragg replied

"John believes Lee to be 5' 11" and Harvey 5' 8" or 5' 9". Lee was a much bigger child than Harvey as well."

----------------

This shows just shows the intent to bend and twist the evidence to fit the theory.

What has been done is that the above has been cropped to hide the height shown on the chart. In this way, it can be claimed - as Meredith & Bragg do - that this is "Lee" the taller of the two at 5' 11".

Here is the UNCROPPED photo showing the Oswald's real height 5' 9".



Appalled... but unfortunately, not surprised. Nor am I surprised that they were dumb enough not to crop all of the height chart, because from what can be seen, Oswald has to be either 5' 6" or 5' 9" . What he can't be (from what is seen in their cropped photo) is 5' 11".

Now await the cries that the photo has been faked.

Now await the cries that the photo has been faked.

That's hilarious! Or they could argue the cropped picture is Harvey and the uncropped picture is Lee.

Maybe this picture just needs to be moved from the Lee to the Harvey column.

Oh wait.. they never bothered to split Jack White's 77 photos of Oswald into two columns.

That would be very interesting to see them attempt to do that.

What a crazy theory.

FFS! How much bullshit are these people going to spout to uphold this ridiculous theory?