• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Robin Ramsay

Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

1,654 posts in this topic

"...If a person wants to believe that there were THREE Oswalds, or that Jackie did it, or that JFK was in on it (which is my theory, for which I have photographic evidence), then what is that to you? Why attack someone for their beliefs? Are all of your beliefs beyond reproach? Is it only in America that we've preserved freedom of speech and expression?

Hi Glenn, that's a very forthright statement to make regarding freedom of speech and beliefs. Please note though that freedom of speech does NOT mean others don't have the right to criticise or challenge what you say. In fact, that is the essence of free speech. Yes you can say what you want (within reason) but likewise, anyone can then, using their right of free speech, respond in a manner they see fit. We have this in England anyway...

Say I were to make a horrible personal verbal attack against a loved member of your family Glen, with gritted teeth you may accept my 'right' to say it, but you too would then have every right to respond in kind. Wouldn't you? And quite right too. There's a price to pay for freedom of speech. Too many people these days truly believe freedom of speech means freedom to speak without any one else's opinion on what was said. It isn't.

So why the surprise when on a public forum dedicated to the most complex murder in the history of humanity some theories and beliefs are questioned and not just left unanswered? Does DVP get this easy ride? Of course he doesn't. There must be theories on this subject that you now know are so impossible they can and should be ruled out, ridiculed even, with better reasoning and research. Do you simply let them go unchallenged? And if so, why does that mean others should too?

Those who attack the H&L story do so because they truly believe that it is an impediment to finding out what really happened. They believe it to be a huge red herring that tells us absolutely nothing about the assassination of JFK. Nothing! DVP's conclusions also tell us nothing about what really happened, but should his Lone-Nuttery go unchallenged too?

So why shouldn't those who believe H&L is a tenuously knocked together string of admin errors and witness fallibility rolled into a complex espionage story straight from some awful B movie express that doubt? This is Don Jeffries territory. He too simply cannot understand why on a public forum those promoting a certain theory should be questioned on it, even if it can easily be proved to be bogus. "If you don't believe it, read another thread!" is his summarised advice.

Well, actually, no. David Josephs often posts on issues where he strongly disagrees with the originator's premise. So does practically everyone else on here. Someone makes a post, others point out possible errors. That's really the whole point isn't it?

But the H&L group don't want that. They don't want to be questioned on their theory. They don't feel it is incumbent on them to have to reply to glaring inconsistencies raised by other forum members. My experience on here is that anyone who takes them on will be subjected to heaps of personal abuse. Maybe you are not aware of this toxic history Glenn. I've seen people come and go on here for years. In that time I've also seen many people take on the H&L theory and as soon as members start asking pertinent questions that cannot be answered they get personal. Very personal! Only a few days ago Steven Gaal started a thread basically accusing Greg of anti Semitism. I complained about the legal ramifications of this and it was taken down. This is the type of tactics Greg deals with all the time.

You clearly dislike him intensely yet you turn a blind eye (again, as does Don Jeffries) to the constant baiting (going back years) from this group that has all the hallmarks of a cult. Not once in the ten years I have followed this forum has anyone of them ever admitted that they are, or have been, wrong at any time and not one new piece of 'proof' has emerged that in any way even slightly backs up their basic premise.

Such a theory needs to be felled to the ground Glenn. That you don't like the method being used is not a reason to believe in any of this nonsense though. Check what has been said. But more importantly check what is always ignored and always unanswered.

Best regards,

Bernie

and BTW, "NO", DVP got it much worse from me and many others than Greg does. some of us made a certain pact a while back, and i simply blocked him, not only because of his immature insults but too because his assimilation of what others call rationale was enough to drive me crazy - i was often unable to bite my tongue and keep from talking to him in the way i dislike so much. this is just as unacceptable from my own mouth as anyone else's. so I will block anyone who continues to belittle others (read the way he spoke to Steven when not whatsoever provoked. what he said was completely out of line, and completely unnecessary. except that it served to reveal Greg's true nature.)

nice way of introducing yourself to me, Bernie. nice to meet you, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No kicks Greg... Just make your arguments fairly, with links and let people look for themselves.

My arguments are fair. Hence the admission of an error. I suppose calling me an anti-Semite (Steve), neocon (Brian Doyle) and a believer in witchcraft (you) is fair? The hypocrisy doesn't get any richer.

And I wish you would start using untarnished MFF links and documents instead of posting your tampered with collages.

btw - Harvey was not Robert. Lee was not Robert. Harvey was not Lee.

Harvey was anybody. And nobody.

Greg: #1 - Today, the average 13 year old male is 61.5 inches tall. David: OK. What's the rest of that quote? At thirteen the average male is 61 & 1/2 inches (156cm) at 14 he is 64&1/2 inches (164 cm).

: ow old was Oswald when measured in May and Sept 1953? Wouldn't he be 14 in Oct 1953?

So? At thirteen and a half, he is at least 3 inches above average height (according to you).

--------------------------
Greg: #2 - It is known that the average height has increased gradually for the past 150 years by a total of 4 inches. David: OK... a link would be nice though
Greg: #3 - It is therefore reasonable to assume that the average 13 year old boy in the early 1950s was no more than 61 inches. David: OK .
"Reasonable to assume" or easily proven with math. Why assume when you can offer authenticated proof?
It's 60 years of a 150 year statistic or 60/150 or 2/5 or 40% of the increase in average height discussed.
So the AVERAGE Greg, not the maximum, minimum, or standard deviations, but the AVERAGE has gone from 57.5 to 61.5 over 150 years. what's 40% of 4? 1.6 inches if it was a straight line gradual change.

So 60 years ago boys AVERAGED 1.6 inches shorter or about 60 inches, than today; the average was indeed "no more than 61" for a 13 year old and 64.5" for a 14 year old... how old was Oswald when measured for this discussion again?

There is no reason to believe that the increase was a straight line. With that in mind, I was generous and erred in YOUR favor. But I'm happy to take the average back to 60 inches for 1953. You've now got him 4 inches above that average.

Greg: #4 - Yet we are now expected to believe that Oswald was about 3 inches taller than the average boy of his age. David No "expected to believe" anything here mate....

Back to standard deviation Greg... you Googled it while reading this right? for a 13-14 year old it's about 2 inches.

Using your logic here, is it reasonable to assume that between 13 and 14 they grow from 60 to 63 inches in the 50's?

That a boy who was say 13 and 7 months would be more than 60 but less than 63 inches on average?

2 standard deviations is 4 inches where 13.6% of the population falls (34.1% is Deviation #1) . This has nothing to do with Robert's genetics...

13.6% of the population will be 4 inches greater and less than average... Lee, as easily seen from that photo, falls closer to that 13.6% in 6th grade than the average - but we are not saying he was 64" tall in 6th grade or June 1952.

The records refer to MAY and SEPT 1953

You cannot accurately tell Lee's height in that photo. Again - he is far from the tallest in the back row -- and way shorter than his teacher.

Greg: #5 - Clearly the totality of the evidence makes a nonsense of that.
David: "Totality of the evidence" Greg?
You presented only this evidence Greg... today's 61.5" ave height after 4" of growth over 150 years.
Did I miss something?
Then you said something about expecting to believe.... which I proved using math
--------------------
What evidence did you present which made it "nonsense" that a 13 7/12 thru 13 11/12 year old could be 64 inches tall in 1953?... :mellow:
-------------------
Now Greg, what about your claim that it really said 54" ??
That is clearly the only nonsense here - even at 2 standard deviations which cover 95% of the population, you can't get to a 54" kid but only a 56+" kid from a 60" average. Only 2.5% of the population are 56" or less at this age. There are 5-6 times more kids 64" than 56" in any representative population sample
How did you put it? Clearly. :up
Indeed. Clearly. Since a proper reading of the Beauregard records shows beyond doubt that there was no overlap with NY PS 44, and since there was no one in NY claiming he was above average height (or for that matter, short for his age - at least in the public records), the reasonable explanation is that Lee was in the 4' 6" range until puberty kicked in - apparently a similar pattern to his brother, Robert - the smallest kid at the boarding school of 100+ kids. IOW, ROBERT WAS IN THAT 2.5%. So was his younger brother.
It is YOUR claim remember, that people like Kurian were correct (presumably with an inch or two allowed as a margin of error) - so you are claiming "Harvey" falls into the "2.5% of the population [who] are 56" or less at this age." I have no problem with that. Except it was Lee - not a mirage created with smoke and mirrors.
Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...I suppose calling me an anti-Semite (Steve), neocon (Brian Doyle) and a believer in witchcraft (you) is fair"

These are the slights to which you've taken such an exception??? anti-semite? a believer in witchcraft (not a witch, just a person who believes...!!!)?

neocon?

Those hurt your feelings so bad you said what you said to Steve?

my word...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...I suppose calling me an anti-Semite (Steve), neocon (Brian Doyle) and a believer in witchcraft (you) is fair"

These are the slights to which you've taken such an exception??? anti-semite? a believer in witchcraft (not a witch, just a person who believes...!!!)?

neocon?

Those hurt your feelings so bad you said what you said to Steve?

my word...

Who said my feelings were hurt? I am pointing out they use these slurs in lieu of actual argument.

I don't use insults in lieu of arguments.

And to be frank with you, I have no idea which of the insults I've hurled at Steve you are referring to. Mine are based on frustration in dealing with his taunts, myriad fonts, and mixed font sizes and colors - not to mention his hallucinatory dialogue. No amount of drugs could allow me to render some of his posts coherent. They are the verbal equivalent of a Jackson Pollack special done after a night on the cheap red.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...If a person wants to believe that there were THREE Oswalds, or that Jackie did it, or that JFK was in on it (which is my theory, for which I have photographic evidence), then what is that to you? Why attack someone for their beliefs? Are all of your beliefs beyond reproach? Is it only in America that we've preserved freedom of speech and expression?

Hi Glenn, that's a very forthright statement to make regarding freedom of speech and beliefs. Please note though that freedom of speech does NOT mean others don't have the right to criticise or challenge what you say. In fact, that is the essence of free speech. Yes you can say what you want (within reason) but likewise, anyone can then, using their right of free speech, respond in a manner they see fit. We have this in England anyway...

Say I were to make a horrible personal verbal attack against a loved member of your family Glen, with gritted teeth you may accept my 'right' to say it, but you too would then have every right to respond in kind. Wouldn't you? And quite right too. There's a price to pay for freedom of speech. Too many people these days truly believe freedom of speech means freedom to speak without any one else's opinion on what was said. It isn't.

So why the surprise when on a public forum dedicated to the most complex murder in the history of humanity some theories and beliefs are questioned and not just left unanswered? Does DVP get this easy ride? Of course he doesn't. There must be theories on this subject that you now know are so impossible they can and should be ruled out, ridiculed even, with better reasoning and research. Do you simply let them go unchallenged? And if so, why does that mean others should too?

Those who attack the H&L story do so because they truly believe that it is an impediment to finding out what really happened. They believe it to be a huge red herring that tells us absolutely nothing about the assassination of JFK. Nothing! DVP's conclusions also tell us nothing about what really happened, but should his Lone-Nuttery go unchallenged too?

So why shouldn't those who believe H&L is a tenuously knocked together string of admin errors and witness fallibility rolled into a complex espionage story straight from some awful B movie express that doubt? This is Don Jeffries territory. He too simply cannot understand why on a public forum those promoting a certain theory should be questioned on it, even if it can easily be proved to be bogus. "If you don't believe it, read another thread!" is his summarised advice.

Well, actually, no. David Josephs often posts on issues where he strongly disagrees with the originator's premise. So does practically everyone else on here. Someone makes a post, others point out possible errors. That's really the whole point isn't it?

But the H&L group don't want that. They don't want to be questioned on their theory. They don't feel it is incumbent on them to have to reply to glaring inconsistencies raised by other forum members. My experience on here is that anyone who takes them on will be subjected to heaps of personal abuse. Maybe you are not aware of this toxic history Glenn. I've seen people come and go on here for years. In that time I've also seen many people take on the H&L theory and as soon as members start asking pertinent questions that cannot be answered they get personal. Very personal! Only a few days ago Steven Gaal started a thread basically accusing Greg of anti Semitism. I complained about the legal ramifications of this and it was taken down. This is the type of tactics Greg deals with all the time.

You clearly dislike him intensely yet you turn a blind eye (again, as does Don Jeffries) to the constant baiting (going back years) from this group that has all the hallmarks of a cult. Not once in the ten years I have followed this forum has anyone of them ever admitted that they are, or have been, wrong at any time and not one new piece of 'proof' has emerged that in any way even slightly backs up their basic premise.

Such a theory needs to be felled to the ground Glenn. That you don't like the method being used is not a reason to believe in any of this nonsense though. Check what has been said. But more importantly check what is always ignored and always unanswered.

Best regards,

Bernie

Bernie, I appreciate the candor. I understand our first amendment better than you think, though. I never intimated that i had a problem with his verbally disagreeing with another theory.

i have a problem with how he talks to people in general. If you read more than that last post of mine, you'd see that i said that very thing. also, if you'd read more than you clearly read, you'd see that i also stated more then once that I bet he has some good intellect and research to offer, but that i'd lost interest in it once i saw how he "rolls." in fact, that's how i started this little string, saying that his point about that mimeographed form might be interesting, but i'll never know cause i don't care to read his stuff ...

missed that too, did ya? of course...

your logic is flawed. i've done nothing to lead anyone to think i dislike Greg - "intensely." it's his rudeness i dislike intensely, and if i'd seen anything resembling a good reason to act the way he does, then i'd feel differently. but i haven't. (How long have i been active in this forum, um - Bernie? long enough to have had the chance to see what you're talking about? do you even know how long? yet you assume i should have witnessed improper behavior from John or Jon or whomever toward Greg by now - i've only seen Cliff show his arse to Pat, and i said the same thing to him. Rudeness is for children. period.)

that sentence you quoted was probably more in response to something Greg said to me, and not in response to his approach to this H&L thing.

I am quite capable of making sound judgement on available information. i don't need any of these fellows "thoughts" or biases to urge my direction. The funny thing is, the ones who i respect the most are the ones who are NOT trying to pull me away from their detractors, whereas Greg - and now you - seem to be concerned with my ability to form my own opinions

do you not see the um, "irony" in that?

do not be so condescending as to tell me who to listen to, Bernie. I'm an adult now. I've been thinking all by myself for quite awhile.

go read ALL the things i said to Greg, you'll see where you may have jumped the gun. It's nothing to do with H&L or any theory. You just made that assumption all by yourself.

look ma, no hands!

You have a really creepy and very unhealthy obsession with Greg. You do know that don't you?

Why?

You castigate him for being a whiner when he is publicly labelled an anti Semite by Steven Gaal, a mere "slight" according to you, yet here you are with lots of "whining" words on Greg and his... 'rudeness'.

Obviously being 'rude' needs 1,000's of reprimanding words in response.

But defending oneself against baseless trolling accusations of anti Semitism?

Shame on you for not condemning Gaal and his libellous accusation.

Presumably being labelled an anti Semite is no big deal to you. But being labelled 'rude' would be.

I'll leave it there.

How do you block people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, DJ....

John A. is right, and, as you keep saying....

The Evidence IS the Conspiracy!!!

What a great and honest phrase!!!

Let's keep presenting EVIDENCE! I'm thinking STRIPLING SCHOOL AND ALL JA's STRIPLING EVIDENCE should be next. What do you think? I've got JA's Stripling write-ups lined up, complete with YouTube interviews of Kudlaty and Schubert, ready to post.

Should I pull the trigger, or should we do something else first? Your opinion is most appreciated!

The Harvey and Lee Credo:

"No innocent mistakes were made by witnesses. No innocent mistakes were made by the FBI, DPD, Sheriff's Department, etc., in recording witnesses' statements. It was all intentional and proves that the bad guys chose two boys (and their mothers) in the early 1950's whom they somehow knew would grow up looking very much alike, when appropriate, but very different when necessary. You know, like when a person smiles in one photo taken from a certain angle and wearing certain clothing in certain lighting conditions, with a certain camera and a certain lens, etc., and tries to look "tough" in a different photograph, taken at from a different angle while wearing different clothes, etc, etc. They must be different people, right????? Especially if their being different people fits perfectly in my wacky, paranoid theory, right??? They must be different people, gosh darn it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

"Golly, this is fun!" --T. Graves

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The Harvey and Lee Credo, continued--

"The bad guys started planning and implementing all of this long before JFK was elected President. Harvey's and Lee's families, friends, and acquaintances were in on it from the beginning, and for whatever reason have decided to not spill the beans, just proving that the bad guys are all powerful and try to control everything we do and think, and we don't even know it. So if you want to make sense out of this chaotic, evil world that we live in, just start thinking like we do -- NO INNOCENT MISTAKES WERE MADE BY THE WITNESSES OR THE REPORTING AUTHORITIES.

--Tommy :sun

Nice Rant TG :up

Your righteous indignation is duly noted... yet you still do not PROVE anything with these little tirades.

Amazing how you can define what it is we do and represent but can do nothing to refute any of it other than just talk and talk and talk.

When you finally do try and prove something, it winds up being wrong.

Well done boys

:sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

STRIPLING SCHOOL

While New Orleans-born LEE Oswald attended Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans for 89 days during the fall term of 1954, Russian-speaking HARVEY Oswald went to Stripling Junior High in Fort Worth. According to the Warren Report, “Oswald” never attended Stripling. I should have included Stripling School in my list of Top 10 reasons to believe in Harvey and Lee, but didn't. Hopefully, this post will rectify that omission.

Included at the end of the write-up are links to YouTube interviews with Stripling's 1954 vice-principal Frank Kudlaty and Harvey's Stripling classmate Fran Schubert. Posted with permission of John Armstrong.

From Harvey and Lee, pp. 94–103:

September-November, 1954: Harvey Oswald in Fort Worth

When Myra DaRouse returned to Beauregard in the fall of 1954 she was not

assigned a homeroom, and never again saw her friend and former homeroom student,

Harvey Oswald. She didn't know that Harvey and the older, dumpy, heavy-set "Mar-

guerite Oswald" imposter already left New Orleans and moved to Fort Worth. They

moved into a small apartment at 2220 Thomas Place, and Harvey began attending 9th

grade classes at W.C. Stripling Junior High--once again without transcripts from his previ-

ous school (Beauregard). The Warren Commission, either unaware or wanting to avoid

Stripling, reported that "Lee Harvey Oswald" attended the 9th grade at Beauregard Jun-

ior High in New Orleans in the fall of 1954.


Warren Report, p. 679

"He entered the ninth grade (Beauregard Junior High in New Orleans) in Sep-

tember and again received mediocre but acceptable marks."

The Warren Commission reported that Oswald attended the 7th grade and the

first half of the 8th grade in New York City. They reported that he completed the last

half of the 8th grade and all of the 9th grade at Beauregard Junior High in New Orleans.

But the Commission never attempted to resolve the following portion of Robert Oswald's testimony,

which I read for the first time in 1993:

Mr. Jenner: And, at that time, I take it your brother Lee was attending Arling-

ton Heights High School? That would be 1952?


Mr. Oswald: Just a minute please. In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be

attending W.C. Stripling Junior High School then.


Mr. Jenner: I see. For the school year 1951-52?


Mr. Oswald: Yes, sir. Junior high school there was from the seventh to the ninth

grades. And as soon as he finished the sixth year at Ridglea Elementary School,

he started attending W.C. Stripling Junior High school.


At this point Jenner realized there was a problem and intimated that Robert's answer was

wrong by questioning his answer. (Oswald was supposed to be attending junior high school

in New York in the fall of 1952-not in Fort Worth).


Mr. Jenner: As soon as he finished the sixth year at Ridglea Elementary School,

he entered W.C. Stripling High School as a seventh grader?


Mr. Oswald: Yes, sir-junior high school.


Mr. Jenner: Now, the condition that you described ...... 31 54-16

Robert Oswald's testimony conflicted with the Beauregard junior high school

records published by the Warren Commission. Albert Jenner's reluctance to resolve the

discrepancy, and his intentional changing of the subject matter to avoid any further dis-

cussion about Stripling, indicates that he was aware of the conflict. Neither Jenner nor

any member of the Commission attempted to question Robert further about his state-

ment, inquire as to his knowledge that Oswald attended Stripling, or obtain Stripling

school records.


Robert Oswald's knowledge of Stripling

In 1959, after Lee Harvey Oswald "defected" to Russia, Robert Oswald was

interviewed by reporters in Fort Worth. He innocently told Fort Worth Star Telegram

reporter Jack Douglas (and other Fort Worth reporters) that his brother went to Strip-

ling Junior High School and thought he attended Arlington Heights High School.32This

was 5 years before Robert told the same story to the Warren Commission.

In June 1961, the Secret Service received an FBI report and a newspaper article

which said that Oswald had attended Stripling Junior High in Fort Worth. 54-17

In June 1962, when Harvey Oswald was returning to the United States from

Russia, an article appeared in the Fort Worth Star Telegram. Once again Robert Oswald

told reporters that his brother attended Stripling Junior High School and Arlington

Heights High School."33

Robert Oswald stated publicly, on three separate occasions over a 5-year period,

that his brother attended Stripling Junior High in Fort Worth. The Commission could

only ignored Robert Oswald's references to Stripling. They reported that after complet-

ing the 6th grade in 1952, Lee Harvey Oswald attended junior high in New York and

New Orleans, and did not return to Fort Worth until the summer of 1956.

Could Robert have been mistaken?

Robert Oswald joined the Marines in July 1952 and was not living in Fort Worth

during the fall when his brother was supposed to attend junior high. I considered the pos-

sibility that Robert assumed that his brother entered Stripling after finishing elementary

school, because this was the same school he (Robert) attended in the fall of 1948. But

if Lee Oswald and his mother had remained in Fort Worth in the fall of 1952, Lee would

have transferred to nearby Monnig Junior High, not Stripling.

On August 21, 1948, prior to the beginning of school, Marguerite sold her house

and drove with Lee in her 1948 Dodge to New York City. Two months later Robert

Oswald visited his mother and brother in New York, shortly after Lee entered the 7th

grade.34 Robert again visited Lee and Marguerite in New York in the summer of 1953,

when Lee was between the 7th and 8th grades at PS #44.35 Robert's visits to New York

make it nearly impossible to believe that he could have assumed his younger brother

attended Stripling in the 7th grade.

After Robert was discharged from the Marines, in July 1955, he briefly resided

with Lee and Marguerite at their apartment on Exchange Place in New Orleans. Lee had

recently graduated from the 9th grade at Beauregard Junior High and, according to

Robert, was working for an export firm. If anyone knew where Lee Harvey Oswald at-

tended all of his junior high school years, it was Robert Oswald. So why would Robert tell

reporters in 1959 and 1962, and tell the Warren Commission in 1964, that his "brother" had

attended Stripling? Because Robert was telling the Commission about his limited knowledge of

Harvey Oswald's background.

Helping to merge the identities of Harvey and Lee

Robert's statements relating to his brother's attendance at Stripling, made to

reporters in 1959 and 1962 and the Warren Commission in 1964, were intended to show

that the Lee Harvey Oswald who "defected" to Russia in 1959 was Robert's brother. But

the "defector" was not Robert's brother and, from all indications, Robert knew it.

John Pic said that Robert drove his car to New Orleans during the summer of

1956 in order to pick up Lee Harvey Oswald and Marguerite and then drove them to

Fort Worth. In Fort Worth Oswald's neighbors at 4936 Collinwood recalled that Rob-

ert lived with Marguerite and Lee Harvey Oswald in the apartment for about four

months.36 The apartment was close to both Stripling (a few blocks south) and Arling-

ton Heights High School (several blocks south). As we shall see, the boy who lived with

the short, dumpy, heavy-set "Marguerite Oswald" imposter and Robert Oswald at the

Collinwood apartment was Harvey.

Five years earlier Robert Oswald attended Stripling Junior High as a 9th grade

student (1948-49), and then attended Arlington Heights High School as a sophomore

(1949-50) and a junior (1951-52). Harvey also attended Stripling as a 9th grade student

( 1954 ), and in the fall of 1956 enrolled at Arlington Heights as a sophomore. Both boys

had attended the 9th and 1Oth grades at the same schools and it is likely they discussed

teachers and friends from both Stripling and "Heights," during the four months they

lived together at 4936 Collinwood.

Understanding Robert Oswald's testimony

Following the assassination of President Kennedy Robert Oswald's public state-

ments in 1959 and 1962, concerning Lee Harvey Oswald's attendance at Stripling, be-

came a potentially serious problem. In the author's opinion, Robert tried to explain his

earlier statements to the press by telling the Commission that his brother attended Strip-

ling before he left Fort Worth and moved to New York.

Robert's statement, "As soon as he finished the sixth year at Ridglea Elemen-

tary School, he started attending W.C. Stripling Junior High school," caught the atten-

tion Commission Attorney Albert Jenner, who recognized the potential conflict and had

no intention of allowing Robert to elaborate.

Robert's statement about Stripling went unchallenged for years, as did his con-

tinual public pronouncements that "Lee Harvey Oswald" lived in a fantasy world and

assassinated the President. From interviews with reporters, FBI agents, Warren Com-

mission testimony, his book Lee, and numerous television interviews, Robert Oswald's

position is very clear--he supports the Warren Commission's conclusion that "Lee Harvey

Oswald" killed President Kennedy, while knowing full well that man was not his brother.

Harvey Oswald at Stripling in the fall of 1954

The Warren Commission ignored Robert Oswald's testimony about Stripling

and concluded that "Lee Harvey Oswald" left Fort Worth in August of 1952, and moved

to New York with his mother where he attended the 7th grade (1952-53) and the first

half of the 8th grade (fall semester, 1953). He then moved to New Orleans where he at-

tended the last half of the 8th grade (spring semester, 1954), all of the 9th grade (1954-

55 school year), and graduated from Beauregard in June 1955. He briefly attended

Warren Easton High School in the fall of 1955 (New Orleans), dropped out, worked in

New Orleans for the next 8 months, and then moved to Fort Worth.

According to Warren Commission version of his background, it would have been impos-

sible for "Lee Harvey Oswald" to have attended even a single day of school at Stripling Junior

High in Fort Worth, from September 1952 thru June 1956.

After reading Robert Oswald's testimony, I wrote a letter to the principal of W.C.

Stripling, Mr. Ricardo Galindo, and asked if there were any records of Oswald's atten-

dance at Stripling.37 Mr. Galindo telephoned and said that while he did not have pos-

session of such records, it was "common knowledge" that Oswald attended Stripling.

He said all school records had been turned over to the Fort Worth Independent School

District many years ago, and suggested that I contact them to see if they had any records.

In late 1993 I made an appointment with Mr. Ralph Waller of the FWISD, 100

North University, in Fort Worth. I met Mr. Waller and his friend, Billy J. Sills, a retired

resident of Fort Worth who was devoting his time to setting up an historical archive for

the District. When I asked if the District had any school records for "Lee Harvey

Oswald," Mr. Waller instructed a co-worker to review their microfilm and provide me

with copies of any records. When I asked if there was a list of teachers who taught at

Stripling in 1954 Mr. Waller said they had no such list, but Billy Sills said he would check

his records and then left.

Mr. Waller explained that students who graduated from Ridglea West Elemen-

tary School prior to the 1951-1952 school year would have gone to Stripling Junior High.

Students who graduated from Ridglea West Elementary School during or after the 1951-

52 school year would have attended Monnig Junior High School, which opened in the

fall of 1952. Oswald graduated from Ridglea West in the spring of 1952, and a copy of

his school transcripts should have been sent to Monnig Junior High--not Stripling.

NOTE: Only Marguerite Oswald's notification that the family was moving to New York

would have prevented Ridglea West Elementary from automatically forwarding a copy

of Oswald's school transcripts to Monnig. Such a request was not made because the New

York school records did not contain any school transcripts from Ridglea West Elemen-

tary.

After researching their microfilm records, Mr. Waller's co-workers did not find

any of Oswald's school transcripts, which meant the original records and carbon copies

disappeared prior to 1964 (probably confiscated by the FBI in 1963 ). The only records

they located were enrollment cards from 1951 and 1952 for Ridglea West Elementary

School.

NOTE: Prior to the mid-1960's, each Fort Worth school archived school records on site.

In the mid-1960's records from all Fort Worth schools were transferred to a central

warehouse at the Fort Worth Independent School District and microfilmed.

As I was leaving Mr. Waller's office, Billy Sills returned and gave me a handwrit-

ten list of 41 teachers who had taught at Stripling Junior High during the 1951-1952

school year, along with their most recent address and telephone number.54-18


Stripling faculty members

After many hours of long distance telephone calls, I managed to contact a sur-

prising number of former Stripling teachers, although many were deceased. One man

I spoke with was Mark Summers, a former gym teacher, who began his 1 0-year tenure

at Stripling in September 1950, one year after Robert Oswald graduated from the school

( 1949). Mr. Summers said that "Lee Harvey Oswald" was a student in his gym class for

a short time, but remembered little about him.

NOTE: Mr. Summers could not have mistakenly remembered Robert Oswald in his class,

because Robert graduated from Stripling the year before he began teaching.


As I continued to locate and talk with former Stripling teachers, many suggested

that I call "Frank Kudlaty," the former assistant principal at Stripling. I telephoned Mr.

Kudlaty, introduced myself as a JFK researcher, and asked if he knew whether or not

"Lee Harvey Oswald" had attended Stripling. Without hesitation Frank said, "Yes, he

attended Stripling." Somewhat surprised I asked, "How do you know that." Frank re-

plied, "Because I gave his Stripling records to the FBI."

I was momentarily stunned by Frank's answer, and asked him to tell me what

he remembered in detail. He explained, "Early on the morning following the assassi-

nation, Saturday morning, I was telephoned by my boss, Mr. (Weldon) Lucas (Princi-

pal of Stripling), and told to go to school and meet two FBI agents. I lived close to the

school at that time and arrived at the school before they (FBI Agents) got there. I went

into the school and located Oswald's records. In fact I found both Lee Harvey and Rob-

ert Oswald's records for Stripling. I opened Lee Harvey Oswald's folder and briefly

looked over his records and noted that he had attended less than a full semester at Strip-

ling. He had been there long enough to receive grades for a 6-week period, but not long

enough to receive semester grades. I think he was in the 9th grade. I put the records

back into the folder and waited for the FBI agents. When they arrived, they showed me

their badges for identification, and asked for the records. I told them that I had located

both Lee Harvey and Robert Oswald's school records and asked if they wanted both.

They told me they only wanted 'Lee Harvey Oswald's' records. After I handed the

records to them they thanked me and left. I locked up the school and went home."38

Frank went on to explain that Stripling did not have a copy machine and nei-

ther of the agents gave him a receipt for the records. He said that no one, except my-

self, had ever asked him about Oswald's records at Stripling Junior High.

After speaking with Frank, I made arrangements to visit him and his wife,

Marlene, at their home in Waco, Texas. Frank graduated from Texas Christian Univer-

sity (TCU), began teaching at Stripling in the fall of 1951, and by 1963, was the assis-

tant principal. After leaving Stripling, Frank became the Superintendent of Schools in

Waco, Texas, a position he held until his retirement in 1987. In 1979 the US State De-

partment asked the American Association of School Administrators to select a 25-mem-

ber team of educators to travel to the Peoples Republic of China and advise the Chi-

nese government on education. Frank was one of the educators chosen to attend, and

traveled to China in November 1979.

Frank explained, during a videotaped interview, that before the FBI agents

arrived at Stripling on Saturday morning (November 23), he briefly reviewed Oswald's

school file. He explained that when a student enrolled in a new school, in this case at

Stripling, the previous school routinely sent copies of his school transcripts. Occasion-

ally, if the records were not sent, the new school would write and request copies of the

school records from the previous school. Frank said that when he examined Oswald's

file he saw neither copies of school transcripts from a previous school nor a letter from

Stripling requesting such records. Frank said this was very unusual, as Oswald must have

attended school prior to his attendance at Stripling, yet there were no records.

Frank said the Stripling records showed that Oswald received grades for one 6-

week grade period, had attended a second grade period, but had not completed the fall

semester.

NOTE: Harvey Oswald's failure to complete a full semester of school at PS # 117 or at

PS #44 in New York continued at Stripling. His inability to complete a full semester was

probably due to his inability to provide transcripts from previous schools. This was

probably the reason he dropped out of Stripling and returned to New Orleans with the

short, dumpy, heavy-set "Marguerite Oswald" imposter in late 1954.

Frank explained that when students graduated or were transferred from Strip-

ling, copies of their Stripling transcripts were sent to the new school along with a cover

letter. Once again, Frank saw no indication that copies of Oswald's transcripts from

Stripling had been forwarded to any school. The only school records in Oswald's file

were those created by his attendance at Stripling, which Frank said was very unusual.

NOTE: Copies of Oswald's school transcripts from the 8th grade at Beauregard should

have been in Oswald's file at Stripling.


Copies of Oswald's school transcripts from the fall semester of 1954 (9th grade) at Strip-

ling should have been forwarded to Warren Easton High School in New Orleans where

Harvey Oswald entered the 10th grade in the fall of 1955.

After talking with Frank, I realized that certain FBI official(s) had to have known

about Lee Harvey Oswald's Stripling Junior High attendance prior to the assassination,

which probably meant they also knew about the existence of two Oswalds. Otherwise,

why were two agents sent to Stripling to confiscate junior high school records less than

20 hours after the assassination? And why would the FBI be interested in Oswald's

records from junior high school? ..... Because those records proved that Harvey Oswald attended

Stripling Junior High in Fort Worth at the same time that Lee Oswald attended Beauregard

Junior High in New Orleans. If both of these school records were made public, they would

expose the two Oswalds and the agency responsible for merging the identity of the ac-

cused Presidential assassin with New Orleans-born Lee Harvey Oswald. Needless to say,

the Stripling records disappeared.

NOTE: In the mid-1990 s I wrote to the Assassination Records Review Board and pro-

vided them with Frank Kudlaty s name, address, a synopsis of his statements to me, and

a copy of the videotaped interview. Franks name appears on several internal ARRB

memos, but no one contacted him. The ARRB s avoidance of personal contact with Frank

Kudlaty followed the FBI/WC/HSCAs practice of ignoring troublesome witnesses.

Monnig Junior High

Frank Kudlaty knew the principal of Monnig Junior High, Mr. Ree Bostick, for

many years and talked with him after the assassination. Mr. Bostick told Frank that FBI

agents also visited his school and asked for Lee Harvey Oswald's school records.39 Mr.

Bostick did know which records, if any, were give to the agents. If there were records,

they were probably copies of Oswald's records from Ridglea West Elementary that were

forwarded to Monnig. I spent several weeks trying to locate Mr. Bostick, and finally

learned that he died years ago. I did locate and visit his widow at a rest home in Fort

Worth, but she had no knowledge of any discussions between her husband and the FBI.

NOTE: Only notification by Marguerite Oswald of their move to New York in the fall

of 1952 would have prevented Ridglea West from routinely forwarding carbon copies of

Oswald's transcripts to Monnig.

The Stripling records disappear

I knew that Oswald's original New York school records and court file disap-

peared while in FBI custody and was almost certain the Stripling records suffered a

similar fate. Nevertheless, I searched for Stripling records at the National Archives, in

the FBI microfilm, in the Warren Volumes, and at the Fort Worth Independent School

District, but without success. I then filed a Freedom of Information request with the

FBI and asked for any and all Stripling records, FBI reports relating to Stripling, and FBI

reports relating to Frank Kudlaty. On May 14, 1994, I received a reply from the FBI

which stated "a search of the indices to our central records system files at FBI Head-

quarters revealed no record responsive to your request." 54-19

Former Stripling Junior High students

In November 1994, I attended the Assassination Symposium on Kennedy (ASK

Convention) at the Adolphus Hotel in Dallas. During breakfast with fellow researcher

Robert Groden, I learned that he was scheduled to be interviewed by Kevin McCarthy

on KLIF radio later in the day. I explained my interest in Oswald's attendance at Strip-

ling to Robert and asked for a favor. I wanted Robert, during his radio interview on

KLIF, to ask if anyone in the listening audience had attended Stripling Junior High with

Oswald.

After finishing the radio interview, Robert called me and said that two people

had responded to his request by calling the station. The first caller was a man named

"Don," who said he had lived close to Oswald when he attended Stripling, but left no

phone number. The second person was Franzetta (Schubert) Tubbs, who left her name

and phone number.

I immediately contacted Franzetta and asked her what she remembered about

Oswald. Fran explained that she entered Stripling in 1953 as a 7th grade student, but

was somewhat overwhelmed by the large school and hardly spoke to anyone.

The next year, in the 8th grade, she felt more comfortable with her surround-

ings and made many new friends. Fran lived at 4104 Valentine Street, which was sev-

eral blocks from Stripling, and was not close enough for her to walk home during lunch.

She reluctantly took a sack lunch to school and, when the weather was nice, sat on the

west side of the school to eat her lunch. Fran told me, "I used to watch with envy as

some of the kids got to walk home for lunch, while I had to stay at school."

NOTE: The Stripling school grounds cover an entire city block in an older middle-class

residential area a few miles southwest of downtown Fort Worth. The school building is

located on the northern portion of the block, with the front of the school facing east on

Clover Lane, and the rear of the school facing west on Thomas Place. The southern por-

tion of the school property contains basketball courts, baseball, football, and track fields,

and is surrounded by a chain link fence.

At noon Fran used to watch one of the students leave the building, walk through

the basketball courts, cross the street (Thomas Place), and enter a white house with a

large front porch. The student, clearly remembered by Fran, was "Lee Harvey Oswald."

Fran remembered that Oswald was a skinny kid who wore a dark brown leather jacket,

blue jeans, and was very quiet. She also remembered Oswald's "mother," who she said

was heavy-set and always wore a white nurse's uniform. Fran was in the 8th grade and

had no classes with Oswald, who was in the 9th grade, but saw him between classes and

in the hallways. She said, "He wasn't there too long and the one thing I remember

clearly was him walking home for lunch .... .it made me mad that he could go home for

lunch and I couldn't. I only saw him for a short time at the beginning of.my 8th grade

year at Stripling, which would be the 1954-55 school year. "40

2220 Thomas Place

In 1996 I videotaped an interview with Fran on the west side of the Stripling

school grounds. She pointed to the location, on the west side of Thomas Place, where

Oswald walked home for lunch. In 1954, the building in which Oswald lived was located

at 2220 Thomas Place. It was a small, older, one story, white duplex apartment with a

wide front porch. In the late 1970's the building was torn down and replaced with a

newer, two story, wood frame duplex. Nearly all of the houses in the neighborhood sur-

rounding Stripling were built in the 1920's and 1930's and are still in very good condi-

tion. Curiously, the duplex at 2220 Thomas Place was the only building in the neighborhood that

was torn down and replaced with a newer structure.

The address of 2220 Thomas Place, behind Stripling Junior High, caused me

to remember my interview with Georgia Bell. In the fall of 1947 Georgia's neighbor,

Lucille Hubbard, drove the short, dumpy, heavy-set Marguerite to a house to pick up

some clothes after she got a job as a nurse. The house, according to Mrs. Hubbard, "was

next to the Stripling School." Seven years later, in the fall of 1954, Harvey Oswald lived

in the rear apartment at 2220 Thomas Place and attended Stripling, while his short,

dumpy, heavy-set "caretaker/mother" worked as a nurse. Nine years later, on Novem-

ber 22, 1963, the same woman, the short, dumpy, heavy-set "Marguerite Oswald" im-

poster occupied the same rear apartment and still worked as a practical nurse. The co-

incidences were unmistakable--in 1947, 1954, and 1963 the short, dumpy, heavy-set

"Marguerite Oswald" imposter was linked with 2220 Thomas Place. I decided to check

the land ownership records and Fort Worth city directories for residents of 2220 Tho-

mas Place.

Residents of 2220 Thomas Place

In 1940 the duplex at 2220 Thomas Place was purchased by Edna Pendleton.

There were two apartments-one in the front (apt. "A"), and one in the rear (apt. "B").

In 1946 and 1947 Mrs. Rufie Cox occupied apartment "A," while Erwin and Velda

Schmutz occupied apartment "B." From 1948 thru 1954 Mrs. Rufie Cox occupied apart-

ment "A," but there was no listing for anyone in apartment "B." In 1955, Mrs. Rufie Cox

occupied apartment "A," and W. A. Hazelwood occupied apartment "B."

On February 13, 1963 the property was purchased by Mary Ann McCarthy, al-

legedly a close friend of Fort Worth attorney Fred Korth. Korth represented Edwin

Ekdahl in his 1947 divorce from Marguerite Oswald, became Secretary of the Navy, and

resigned his position only one month before the assassination. The 1964 and 1965 Fort

Worth city directories show the tenant in apartment "B" as M. C. Oswald. In 1978 the

property was sold to John H. Clarke and soon the small duplex was torn down and re-

placed by a new two story, wood frame building.

1953-54 Stripling student directory

I was anxious to see if I could locate other Stripling students who knew Oswald,

and asked Fran if she had a yearbook, photos, or a student directory. Fran said that Strip-

ling did not have yearbooks, she had no photos of Oswald, but she did have a 1953-54

Stripling Student directory. 54-20 Even though the directory was printed the y ear before

Harvey attended Stripling (fall, 1954 ), I began looking through it to see if any names

were familiar.

On page 29 there was an entry for an 8th grade student who lived at 3513 Dor-

othy Lane. The student's name was Paul Gregory, the son of Russian emigre Peter Paul

Gregory. 54-21 In the fall of 1954 both Paul Gregory and Harvey Oswald attended Strip-

ling and both were in the 9th grade. Eight years later, in the summer of 1962, their paths

crossed again.

In June 1962, after Harvey Oswald returned from Russia, he sought out Paul

Gregory's father, Peter Paul Gregory, who taught Russian classes. Peter Gregory spoke

with Oswald and then wrote a "to whom it may concern" letter regarding Oswald's pro-

ficiency in the Russian language.

In the fall of 1962 Paul Gregory was studying Russian at the University of

Oklahoma and, during the Thanksgiving holidays, drove Harvey Oswald, Marina, and

their daughter to Robert Oswald's home for dinner (1962). In November, 1963, following

the assassination of President Kennedy, Paul Gregory showed up as an interpreter for

Marina Oswald.

Stripling students remember Oswald

I searched Fran's 1953-54 student directory and Fort Worth City Directories in

an attempt to locate people who had lived near 2220 Thomas Place in the fall of 1954.

I located Bobby Pitts, who lived next door at 2224 Thomas Place during the 1954-55

school y ear. Bobbie was in the l0th grade at Arlington Heights High School but his

102younger brother, Jackie (2 years younger), attended Stripling. Bobbie remembered that

when he and some of the neighborhood boys played touch football in his front yard, Lee

Harvey Oswald would stand on the porch at 2220 Thomas Place and watch.

JFK researcher Dave Reinmuth put me in contact with Doug Gann, a former

Stripling student who had attended school with Oswald. Gann said that he attended

school with Oswald in the 9th grade (1954-55) and may have been in the same

homeroom. He remembered that after school Oswald would shoot baskets on the bas-

ketball courts, and said that he lived "across the street from the basketball courts and

one or two houses to the left (south)." The location Mr. Gann described was the duplex

formerly located at 2220 Thomas Place--the same house identified by Fran Schubert.

NOTE: While Harvey was attending Beauregard, New Orleans school transcripts re-

corded no absences in the fall of 1954 for Lee Oswald. 54-22


CLICK HERE for YouTube interview with Stripling vice-principal Frank Kudlaty.

CLICK HERE for YouTube interview with Harvey Oswald's schoolmate, Fran Schubert.

CLICK HERE for more about the early years of Harvey and Lee.

Edited by Jim Hargrove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is great Greg... when wrong, let's go back and discuss all your other guesses....

1. The Beauregard school records do NOT show any conflict with the PS 44 records - no matter how badly you need that (and you do badly need them to).

With as much conviction as the last ironclad conclusion...

why are there no 54-55 grade cards showing the "12" that you added to the "168"...? and if "168" is the attendance... 179 must be his attendance for the 53-54 year.

Beauregard%201954-55%20grade%20cards%20d

2. The Ridglea photo gives no indication of how tall he is - except in relation to those around him. He is far from the tallest in the back row, and a hell of a lot shorter than his teacher.

That's what I wrote Greg. We are talking about May and Sept 1953. That he is in the back row of the photo IS INDICATION that he was taller than most everyone in the class

Additionally, no one has a head of hair that is so perfectly flat. I maintain that marker pen has been used on it to give him a different appearance to the Bronx Zoo photo - which itself has been tampered with to again, give a different appearance (yes, that's right, the nose).

Prove it. You SAY a lot of stuff - but prove next to nothing. And what does the nose have to do with it being August 1953 and that boy is barely 4'10" (still much more than that 54" guess you threw at us - also without proof)

3. The ONLY evidence you've got of a 5' 4" inch Lee in NYC is that school record and FBI report based on a (mis)reading of that record. Carro, for example, in late April, 1953, described Lee as being of "average height and weight" - not tall for his age as in your Lee and not short for his age as in your "Harvey" (as indicated in this article "Tall Lee and Short Harvey--School Daze" at the Harvey and Lee site).

"You've" got? This is evidence in the WC records. CE1384. We all got. and it is very clear despite your best efforts. 64" in May and Sept 1953.


You really want to go to battle over what the Youth House and Truant system said about little Lee?
According to his report Oswald did not attend PS44 prior to Youth House (3/23 - 4/16). Yet the School records show he started 3/23... and does not show a single word about Youth House - how dat?

At 58" he falls into the 1st standard deviation. almost 70% of students are within this range most people would call "normal". Carro sees Harvey, not Lee Greg.

He also described this boy as having had a mastoid operation.

Yes he does Greg... from what source does he get this information?

4. Mrs Clyde Livingston - one of Lee's teachers at Ridglea, described him as "quiet and rather shy" - which is how you guys portray "Harvey" not Lee - yet according to you, "Harvey" never went to Ridglea.

You really can't be serious here - or is this "grasping at straws" training?
Now we're back in 4th grade. How do you relate the personality of a 4th grader to the size/disposition of a 6th grader as they advance in a new school?

Here's another image you may not have ever seen. That's little Lee in the 2nd row center. In 4th grade very few boys or girls have hit puberty and started growing

52-21_zpshcjg1gln.jpg

Isn't this now the graduated 6th grader arriving at the Pic home? (The same winter Robert says he did not visit while the Pic he and dates went out together. Something seems amiss with the winter of 1952... what an amazing coincidence... right?) The little shy guy who was a good fighter (equate "quiet and shy" to not being a good fighter for us Greg) and not something faith-based... PROVE something.

Mr. JENNER - Well, at this point, yes, I would like to ask you this: You hadn't seen them from October of 1950 until the summer of 1952. Did you notice any change in him, his overall attitude, his relations with his mother, his demeanor, his feelings towards others, his actions toward others?
Mr. PIC - He was definitely the boss.
Mr. JENNER - Now, tell us on what you base that?
Mr. PIC - I mean if he decided to do something, regardless of what my mother said, he did it. She had no authority whatsoever with him. like had no respect for her at all. He and my wife got along very well together when they were alone, when she wasn't present, she and Lee got along very well. She always reminded me of this.
Mr. JENNER - Your wife reminded you of that?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir. Without my mother present she could make it with Lee.

5. The "Tall Lee and Short Harvey" article states "In an FBI report dated June 5, 1964 (CE 2221), SA Earle Haley described his interview with one of Oswald's Ridglea West Elementary School classmates, Richard Warren Garrett. The report indicated that Oswald and Garrett had played together at school, and Garrett had once been in Oswald's home. Garrett described Oswald as "the tallest, most dominant member of our class." But as anyone who bothers to check can see, CE 2221, has no such claim in it. I'll be generous and allow the possibility that the quote has been attributed incorrectly to CE 2221 instead of Life Magazine. Where does that leave us? In CE 2221, Garrett claimed when he next met Lee at Arlington High a few years later and now describes him as "hesitant, a little more quiet, and did not talk too much..." Sounds more like the Lee recalled by Mrs. Livingston, no? I put it to you, that even if Garrett did describe Lee has the tallest kid etc to Life, he was getting Lee confused with someone else, but correctly recalled him from Arlington.

I bet even you, with a little digging, could find his 5th grade photo... (in most cases when everyone stood, the tallest was in the back... sometimes the biggest kids sit on the floor in the front row.

So where did he make this statement Greg? If you had any integrity you would have looked first, oh, that's right. You don't have the book, haven't read the book and have no idea that researchers will look at more than just one source when researching a topic. The difference between you and John is that he likes to be complete where you're just lazy... he'll talk directly with the witnesses and look into whatever else they may have said along the way....

Commission attorney Albert Jenner asked John Pic to identify his brother in the
6th grade class photo from Fort Worth. Pic immediately identified a tall, healthy-looking,
well-built 12-year-old boy in the photo as his brother. This was the same boy who
was remembered by classmate Richard Garrett as, "The tallest, most dominant member

of our group."47

47 Interview of Richard Garrett, LIFE Magazine, 2/21/64, p. 72.

Must have missed that section in your not reading of the book... :up

6. Dr. Kurian, who claims to have interviewed Lee in March, 1953 estimated his height as 4' 8" - in line more or less, with Carro's estimation almost two months later that Oswald was of average height and weight.

Classic Parker tautology... I already proved to you that by 1953 in NYC LEE was 5'4". only Harvey went to Youth House mate... which is why Lee's altered PS44 records do not show it.

Prove otherwise - or is this in your vol 2 of the faith-based speculation and unproven assumptions tome you're into?

You have nothing propping this up EXCEPT your misreading of the Beauregard record and the heights showing in the copy of the PS 44 records supplied for the WC's 26 volumes. The copy thatcopy must have come from is contained in Commission Document #364 and it shows the numbers as being nowhere near as distinct as we see in the volumes version. I say it must have come from that copy because the commission chose from all the Commission Documents which ones it would place into the volumes -- so CD 364 preceded any other version.

Parker... you're projecting again. My "You have nothing" has been posted in this thread and makes you back-peddle and side-step using rhetoric and tautology.

Does it not dawn on you that WCD364 p8 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10765#relPageId=8&tab=page are copies of copies.

You do understand that multiple generations will degrade an image, right?

Side by side these look identical except for the degradation.. Do we really need to do an exhaustive comparison of the same document in a variety of quality? Do you not see this for yourself when looking for docs? There are many, many versions of the same doc spread all over the records... The one John has was from the Archives... You think this version with a cover letter about copies compares to a copy of the one in the Archives?

And in my last response - do you not understand that a 54" 13-14 year old is at the smallest end of the deviation spectrum? He nor Harvey were that small.

So rather than repeating "you have nothing" as if it means something... show us what YOU have and prove your points. Whenever you finally get to that, you wind up proving yourself wrong in every case...

"I say it must have come from that copy because the commission chose from all the Commission Documents which ones it would place into the volumes -- so CD 364 preceded any other version. ":

"You say"? so what?. WCD364 offers COPIES genius. If you bothered reading the first page of that report you'd know that these original records were given to SA Malone of the FBI to turn over to the WC. Malone's office said they did yet there is no record of that occurring. These are NOT the earliest versions of anything. Why would CE1384 be a better version than this? Why would what John copied from the Archives be a better version than this?

Cause WCD384 is yet another layer of copies which degrade the image. What happened to this doc in the hands of the FBI is left to history and us to find out.

Greg - we're all sorry you have such a hard time with this over and over again... You make good guesses yet that's all they are. When you ever get around to proving one of these guesses we'll go from there. Until then you're just air and faith hoping no one notices. I will forever run circles around your knowledge of Oswald's past and the H&L presentation until you do some work... Which I am fairly sure will never happen...

:up

Parker%20edits_zps1tmwpm3y.jpgHealth%20record%20side%20by%20side_zpszk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...If a person wants to believe that there were THREE Oswalds, or that Jackie did it, or that JFK was in on it (which is my theory, for which I have photographic evidence), then what is that to you? Why attack someone for their beliefs? Are all of your beliefs beyond reproach? Is it only in America that we've preserved freedom of speech and expression?

Hi Glenn, that's a very forthright statement to make regarding freedom of speech and beliefs. Please note though that freedom of speech does NOT mean others don't have the right to criticise or challenge what you say. In fact, that is the essence of free speech. Yes you can say what you want (within reason) but likewise, anyone can then, using their right of free speech, respond in a manner they see fit. We have this in England anyway...

Say I were to make a horrible personal verbal attack against a loved member of your family Glen, with gritted teeth you may accept my 'right' to say it, but you too would then have every right to respond in kind. Wouldn't you? And quite right too. There's a price to pay for freedom of speech. Too many people these days truly believe freedom of speech means freedom to speak without any one else's opinion on what was said. It isn't.

So why the surprise when on a public forum dedicated to the most complex murder in the history of humanity some theories and beliefs are questioned and not just left unanswered? Does DVP get this easy ride? Of course he doesn't. There must be theories on this subject that you now know are so impossible they can and should be ruled out, ridiculed even, with better reasoning and research. Do you simply let them go unchallenged? And if so, why does that mean others should too?

Those who attack the H&L story do so because they truly believe that it is an impediment to finding out what really happened. They believe it to be a huge red herring that tells us absolutely nothing about the assassination of JFK. Nothing! DVP's conclusions also tell us nothing about what really happened, but should his Lone-Nuttery go unchallenged too?

So why shouldn't those who believe H&L is a tenuously knocked together string of admin errors and witness fallibility rolled into a complex espionage story straight from some awful B movie express that doubt? This is Don Jeffries territory. He too simply cannot understand why on a public forum those promoting a certain theory should be questioned on it, even if it can easily be proved to be bogus. "If you don't believe it, read another thread!" is his summarised advice.

Well, actually, no. David Josephs often posts on issues where he strongly disagrees with the originator's premise. So does practically everyone else on here. Someone makes a post, others point out possible errors. That's really the whole point isn't it?

But the H&L group don't want that. They don't want to be questioned on their theory. They don't feel it is incumbent on them to have to reply to glaring inconsistencies raised by other forum members. My experience on here is that anyone who takes them on will be subjected to heaps of personal abuse. Maybe you are not aware of this toxic history Glenn. I've seen people come and go on here for years. In that time I've also seen many people take on the H&L theory and as soon as members start asking pertinent questions that cannot be answered they get personal. Very personal! Only a few days ago Steven Gaal started a thread basically accusing Greg of anti Semitism. I complained about the legal ramifications of this and it was taken down. This is the type of tactics Greg deals with all the time.

You clearly dislike him intensely yet you turn a blind eye (again, as does Don Jeffries) to the constant baiting (going back years) from this group that has all the hallmarks of a cult. Not once in the ten years I have followed this forum has anyone of them ever admitted that they are, or have been, wrong at any time and not one new piece of 'proof' has emerged that in any way even slightly backs up their basic premise.

Such a theory needs to be felled to the ground Glenn. That you don't like the method being used is not a reason to believe in any of this nonsense though. Check what has been said. But more importantly check what is always ignored and always unanswered.

Best regards,

Bernie

Bernie, I appreciate the candor. I understand our first amendment better than you think, though. I never intimated that i had a problem with his verbally disagreeing with another theory.

i have a problem with how he talks to people in general. If you read more than that last post of mine, you'd see that i said that very thing. also, if you'd read more than you clearly read, you'd see that i also stated more then once that I bet he has some good intellect and research to offer, but that i'd lost interest in it once i saw how he "rolls." in fact, that's how i started this little string, saying that his point about that mimeographed form might be interesting, but i'll never know cause i don't care to read his stuff ...

missed that too, did ya? of course...

your logic is flawed. i've done nothing to lead anyone to think i dislike Greg - "intensely." it's his rudeness i dislike intensely, and if i'd seen anything resembling a good reason to act the way he does, then i'd feel differently. but i haven't. (How long have i been active in this forum, um - Bernie? long enough to have had the chance to see what you're talking about? do you even know how long? yet you assume i should have witnessed improper behavior from John or Jon or whomever toward Greg by now - i've only seen Cliff show his arse to Pat, and i said the same thing to him. Rudeness is for children. period.)

that sentence you quoted was probably more in response to something Greg said to me, and not in response to his approach to this H&L thing.

I am quite capable of making sound judgement on available information. i don't need any of these fellows "thoughts" or biases to urge my direction. The funny thing is, the ones who i respect the most are the ones who are NOT trying to pull me away from their detractors, whereas Greg - and now you - seem to be concerned with my ability to form my own opinions

do you not see the um, "irony" in that?

do not be so condescending as to tell me who to listen to, Bernie. I'm an adult now. I've been thinking all by myself for quite awhile.

go read ALL the things i said to Greg, you'll see where you may have jumped the gun. It's nothing to do with H&L or any theory. You just made that assumption all by yourself.

look ma, no hands!

You have a really creepy and very unhealthy obsession with Greg. You do know that don't you?

Why?

You castigate him for being a whiner when he is publicly labelled an anti Semite by Steven Gaal, a mere "slight" according to you, yet here you are with lots of "whining" words on Greg and his... 'rudeness'.

Obviously being 'rude' needs 1,000's of reprimanding words in response.

But defending oneself against baseless trolling accusations of anti Semitism?

Shame on you for not condemning Gaal and his libellous accusation.

Presumably being labelled an anti Semite is no big deal to you. But being labelled 'rude' would be.

I'll leave it there.

How do you block people?

You conveniently overloooked two of my points:

"How long have i been active in this forum, Bernie? long enough to have had the chance to see [these attacks from Steve, et al] you're talking about? do you even know how long (NO, you don't)? yet you assume i should have witnessed improper behavior from John or Jon or whomever toward Greg by now."

"Shame on you for not condemning Gaal and his libellous accusation."

the point is, i've never seen Gaal and his libelous accusation. so STOP with whatever i'm ignoring. I can't ignore it if i haven't seen it.

you're weird. "Presumably being labelled an anti Semite is no big deal to you. But being labelled 'rude' would be."

1. Right. it's no big deal to be called names. i kinda grew out of being bothered by it once I became aware of and confident in my own person. I live in Atlanta, GA where caucasians are a minority in public and in government. BY FAR. I'm called a racist ALL THE TIME. I laugh at people who clearly do not know me. If I were not confident in myself, then it would bother me. hmmm...

2. Wrong. first, i'm not labelling Greg rude. I'm describing his behavior and simply stating that i can't stand that kind of behavior, especially when it's directed "downhill." and secondly, I happen to be quite a brash, opinionated and sometimes obstinate person. I'm also called rude quite often, and i cannot typically argue the case. They're often right. so, NO, being called rude is no big deal, either. I know myself. I know when I'm being rude - in FACT, i've admitted it earlier when i said i blocked DVP because he makes me react rudely.

you seemed to miss that, too. don't some people call this 'cherry-picking'...?

the difference in my occasional rudeness and Greg's is that he resorts to and repeats personal insult, often out of context (re his words to Steve) and mine is usually just in response to someone else's crap. also, i'm aware of mine, and i'm not happy with mine. Greg seems to wear his like a medal.

anyway. I'm just defending the forum and its environment, and a few of the people. if they've said anything to justify Greg's words, then (i think i've said this before, which you've again overlooked) i'd say the same thing to them.

this forum is fodder for rabbit-trails and petty, lengthy backbiting. I still get a lot out of it, and i'm just hoping the cancers are eventually excised so the rest of us can get on with the business of joyous intel gathering.

also, right, what's your name? Bernie? nice first impression you've made. i'm thoroughly unimpressed with your fair and objective observations in culling my words for your errant assertions. try reading my posts slowly, maybe you'll see where i've been very fair in my comments. you continue to accuse me knowing i'll respond and then accuse me of being obsessed with Greg.

you're way out of your league in your accusations. you're just plain wrong. i know what i've said, and you've overlooked it.

ta ta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...If a person wants to believe that there were THREE Oswalds, or that Jackie did it, or that JFK was in on it (which is my theory, for which I have photographic evidence), then what is that to you? Why attack someone for their beliefs? Are all of your beliefs beyond reproach? Is it only in America that we've preserved freedom of speech and expression?

Hi Glenn, that's a very forthright statement to make regarding freedom of speech and beliefs. Please note though that freedom of speech does NOT mean others don't have the right to criticise or challenge what you say. In fact, that is the essence of free speech. Yes you can say what you want (within reason) but likewise, anyone can then, using their right of free speech, respond in a manner they see fit. We have this in England anyway...

Say I were to make a horrible personal verbal attack against a loved member of your family Glen, with gritted teeth you may accept my 'right' to say it, but you too would then have every right to respond in kind. Wouldn't you? And quite right too. There's a price to pay for freedom of speech. Too many people these days truly believe freedom of speech means freedom to speak without any one else's opinion on what was said. It isn't.

So why the surprise when on a public forum dedicated to the most complex murder in the history of humanity some theories and beliefs are questioned and not just left unanswered? Does DVP get this easy ride? Of course he doesn't. There must be theories on this subject that you now know are so impossible they can and should be ruled out, ridiculed even, with better reasoning and research. Do you simply let them go unchallenged? And if so, why does that mean others should too?

Those who attack the H&L story do so because they truly believe that it is an impediment to finding out what really happened. They believe it to be a huge red herring that tells us absolutely nothing about the assassination of JFK. Nothing! DVP's conclusions also tell us nothing about what really happened, but should his Lone-Nuttery go unchallenged too?

So why shouldn't those who believe H&L is a tenuously knocked together string of admin errors and witness fallibility rolled into a complex espionage story straight from some awful B movie express that doubt? This is Don Jeffries territory. He too simply cannot understand why on a public forum those promoting a certain theory should be questioned on it, even if it can easily be proved to be bogus. "If you don't believe it, read another thread!" is his summarised advice.

Well, actually, no. David Josephs often posts on issues where he strongly disagrees with the originator's premise. So does practically everyone else on here. Someone makes a post, others point out possible errors. That's really the whole point isn't it?

But the H&L group don't want that. They don't want to be questioned on their theory. They don't feel it is incumbent on them to have to reply to glaring inconsistencies raised by other forum members. My experience on here is that anyone who takes them on will be subjected to heaps of personal abuse. Maybe you are not aware of this toxic history Glenn. I've seen people come and go on here for years. In that time I've also seen many people take on the H&L theory and as soon as members start asking pertinent questions that cannot be answered they get personal. Very personal! Only a few days ago Steven Gaal started a thread basically accusing Greg of anti Semitism. I complained about the legal ramifications of this and it was taken down. This is the type of tactics Greg deals with all the time.

You clearly dislike him intensely yet you turn a blind eye (again, as does Don Jeffries) to the constant baiting (going back years) from this group that has all the hallmarks of a cult. Not once in the ten years I have followed this forum has anyone of them ever admitted that they are, or have been, wrong at any time and not one new piece of 'proof' has emerged that in any way even slightly backs up their basic premise.

Such a theory needs to be felled to the ground Glenn. That you don't like the method being used is not a reason to believe in any of this nonsense though. Check what has been said. But more importantly check what is always ignored and always unanswered.

Best regards,

Bernie

Bernie, I appreciate the candor. I understand our first amendment better than you think, though. I never intimated that i had a problem with his verbally disagreeing with another theory.

i have a problem with how he talks to people in general. If you read more than that last post of mine, you'd see that i said that very thing. also, if you'd read more than you clearly read, you'd see that i also stated more then once that I bet he has some good intellect and research to offer, but that i'd lost interest in it once i saw how he "rolls." in fact, that's how i started this little string, saying that his point about that mimeographed form might be interesting, but i'll never know cause i don't care to read his stuff ...

missed that too, did ya? of course...

your logic is flawed. i've done nothing to lead anyone to think i dislike Greg - "intensely." it's his rudeness i dislike intensely, and if i'd seen anything resembling a good reason to act the way he does, then i'd feel differently. but i haven't. (How long have i been active in this forum, um - Bernie? long enough to have had the chance to see what you're talking about? do you even know how long? yet you assume i should have witnessed improper behavior from John or Jon or whomever toward Greg by now - i've only seen Cliff show his arse to Pat, and i said the same thing to him. Rudeness is for children. period.)

that sentence you quoted was probably more in response to something Greg said to me, and not in response to his approach to this H&L thing.

I am quite capable of making sound judgement on available information. i don't need any of these fellows "thoughts" or biases to urge my direction. The funny thing is, the ones who i respect the most are the ones who are NOT trying to pull me away from their detractors, whereas Greg - and now you - seem to be concerned with my ability to form my own opinions

do you not see the um, "irony" in that?

do not be so condescending as to tell me who to listen to, Bernie. I'm an adult now. I've been thinking all by myself for quite awhile.

go read ALL the things i said to Greg, you'll see where you may have jumped the gun. It's nothing to do with H&L or any theory. You just made that assumption all by yourself.

look ma, no hands!

You have a really creepy and very unhealthy obsession with Greg. You do know that don't you?

Why?

You castigate him for being a whiner when he is publicly labelled an anti Semite by Steven Gaal, a mere "slight" according to you, yet here you are with lots of "whining" words on Greg and his... 'rudeness'.

Obviously being 'rude' needs 1,000's of reprimanding words in response.

But defending oneself against baseless trolling accusations of anti Semitism?

Shame on you for not condemning Gaal and his libellous accusation.

Presumably being labelled an anti Semite is no big deal to you. But being labelled 'rude' would be.

I'll leave it there.

How do you block people?

You conveniently overloooked two of my points:

"How long have i been active in this forum, Bernie? long enough to have had the chance to see [these attacks from Steve, et al] you're talking about? do you even know how long (NO, you don't)? yet you assume i should have witnessed improper behavior from John or Jon or whomever toward Greg by now."

"Shame on you for not condemning Gaal and his libellous accusation."

the point is, i've never seen Gaal and his libelous accusation. so STOP with whatever i'm ignoring. I can't ignore it if i haven't seen it.

you're weird. "Presumably being labelled an anti Semite is no big deal to you. But being labelled 'rude' would be."

1. Right. it's no big deal to be called names. i kinda grew out of being bothered by it once I became aware of and confident in my own person. I live in Atlanta, GA where caucasians are a minority in public and in government. BY FAR. I'm called a racist ALL THE TIME. I laugh at people who clearly do not know me. If I were not confident in myself, then it would bother me. hmmm...

2. Wrong. first, i'm not labelling Greg rude. I'm describing his behavior and simply stating that i can't stand that kind of behavior, especially when it's directed "downhill." and secondly, I happen to be quite a brash, opinionated and sometimes obstinate person. I'm also called rude quite often, and i cannot typically argue the case. They're often right. so, NO, being called rude is no big deal, either. I know myself. I know when I'm being rude - in FACT, i've admitted it earlier when i said i blocked DVP because he makes me react rudely.

you seemed to miss that, too. don't some people call this 'cherry-picking'...?

the difference in my occasional rudeness and Greg's is that he resorts to and repeats personal insult, often out of context (re his words to Steve) and mine is usually just in response to someone else's crap. also, i'm aware of mine, and i'm not happy with mine. Greg seems to wear his like a medal.

anyway. I'm just defending the forum and its environment, and a few of the people. if they've said anything to justify Greg's words, then (i think i've said this before, which you've again overlooked) i'd say the same thing to them.

this forum is fodder for rabbit-trails and petty, lengthy backbiting. I still get a lot out of it, and i'm just hoping the cancers are eventually excised so the rest of us can get on with the business of joyous intel gathering.

also, right, what's your name? Bernie? nice first impression you've made. i'm thoroughly unimpressed with your fair and objective observations in culling my words for your errant assertions. try reading my posts slowly, maybe you'll see where i've been very fair in my comments. you continue to accuse me knowing i'll respond and then accuse me of being obsessed with Greg.

you're way out of your league in your accusations. you're just plain wrong. i know what i've said, and you've overlooked it.

ta ta

also, right, what's your name? Bernie? nice first impression you've made.

Sorry I didn't realise I had to somehow "impress" you when addressing your obsession with Greg. I guess I've failed the interview now. Yes, it's Bernie. The clue is in the first name. That is...Bernie. Well done, you now know how to discern someone's name.

"Right. it's no big deal to be called names." Referring to Gaal's libellous accusation of Greg's anti Semitism (not to me being called Bernie!)

Really? Oh I'm sure I could push some buttons to get you to react Glenn. I'm too nice a person though.

But you do seem to be a man of obsessive habits...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why are there no 54-55 grade cards showing the "12" that you added to the "168"...? and if "168" is the attendance... 179 must be his attendance for the 53-54 year.

Who knows about the grade cards. Maybe they got lost in the shuffle? If that's all you've got, you've got nothing. For the thousandth time, the 168 figure is not meant to be the days of attendance. It is the balance of the days in the school year after days absent. That is why it works as also being the total days in attendance -IF- the student has been enrolled the whole school year. If the student has NOT been enrolled for the whole school year, it CANNOT be used as the total attendance days. You need to subtract the total number of says NOT enrolled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why are there no 54-55 grade cards showing the "12" that you added to the "168"...? and if "168" is the attendance... 179 must be his attendance for the 53-54 year.

Who knows about the grade cards. Maybe they got lost in the shuffle? If that's all you've got, you've got nothing. For the thousandth time, the 168 figure is not meant to be the days of attendance. It is the balance of the days in the school year after days absent. That is why it works as also being the total days in attendance -IF- the student has been enrolled the whole school year. If the student has NOT been enrolled for the whole school year, it CANNOT be used as the total attendance days. You need to subtract the total number of says NOT enrolled.

What are you jabbering on about? I posted the grade cards right there... nothing is lost but your mind mate. Quite a number of conditions on that analysis of yours...

IF... THEN... and the tautologies continue (Glenn and Kenneth - I didn't realize it, that really is his entire debating style - create a false premise and then assume if correct to produce the THEN portion of the statement... nice call!)

You've become found of saying "You've got nothing" yet show up at every gunfight without bullets or a pistol ... well done!

Go back to your little ROKC playground where you belong little boy... You've lost at every point along the way and now simply look foolish and desperate with your IF..THEN's and convenient lapses of memory.

:idea

Take Bernie, Tommy and Paul with you... This forum's ave IQ would jump 50 points and the place would become enjoyable once again

rather than having to contend with your ongoing attempts at creating the ROKC's cesspool environment here seeing you seem to miss it so much spending so little time there anymore and all....

You're a disgrace Parker... and riding the coat tails of Armstrong's H&L to get the attention you'd never garner alone is the ultimate in pathetic...

:up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Garrett

There was a poignant reunion with a grammar school acquaintance, Richard Garrett. “I remember I had to look down to him, and it seemed strange because he had been the tallest, the dominant member of our group in grammar school. He looked like he was just lost. He was very different from the way I remembered him. He seemed to have no personality at all. He couldn't express himself well. He just hadn't turned into somebody. He hadn't turned into anybody. I've read where a lot of people say he was a loner. Well, he wasn't in the sixth grade but he sure was in high school.”

--LIFE Magazine, February 21, 1964, p. 72

Richard Garrett met American-born LEE Oswald in the sixth grade, and Russian-speaking HARVEY Oswald in high school. Like many people who met both Oswalds, Garrett went to an early grave. On August 10, 1969, while waiting at a stoplight with his fiancee at the intersection of Oakland and East Lancaster in Fort Worth, he was shot five times. (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 1/10/70)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Garrett

There was a poignant reunion with a grammar school acquaintance, Richard Garrett. “I remember I had to look down to him, and it seemed strange because he had been the tallest, the dominant member of our group in grammar school. He looked like he was just lost. He was very different from the way I remembered him. He seemed to have no personality at all. He couldn't express himself well. He just hadn't turned into somebody. He hadn't turned into anybody. I've read where a lot of people say he was a loner. Well, he wasn't in the sixth grade but he sure was in high school.”

--LIFE Magazine, February 21, 1964, p. 72

Richard Garrett met American-born LEE Oswald in the sixth grade, and Russian-speaking HARVEY Oswald in high school. Like many people who met both Oswalds, Garrett went to an early grave. On August 10, 1969, while waiting at a stoplight with his fiancee at the intersection of Oakland and East Lancaster in Fort Worth, he was shot five times. (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 1/10/70)

Like I said, you misattributed the quotes to CE 2221. For some reason, you seem reluctant to actually admit it.

All you've proven once again is that memory is fallible - both by your own misattribution and by Garrrett's recollections for LIFE. Lee's teacher Mrs Livingston correctly remembered Lee exactly as Garrett describes him in High School. Why do you ignore Mrs Livingston? Cherry picking, that's why.

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn Nall,

I don't believe I've ever been disrespectful toward Greg Parker. I do believe there were two Oswalds, but I respect Greg's scholarship and his right to advocate his views.

Being too dense to grasp the core of Greg's and D.J.'s disagreements, I can't say I think Greg is wrong. I just have my own reasons for believing there were two youths superficially similar who had the same name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.