Jump to content
The Education Forum

Robert Charles-Dunne

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Robert Charles-Dunne

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

14,148 profile views
  1. So, Galindo led to a further 41 former Stripling teachers, all of whom a thorough John Armstrong tracked down and quizzed.... Excellent. How many of them verified that it was “common knowledge” LHO attended Stripling? Because if the “six” witnesses you claim to have - but don’t - is the extent of those who claim LHO attended Stripling, this “common knowledge” is much like the “common sense” on display here. Not common at all, it would seem. Words still do have meaning, Jim.
  2. So, the idea is to create two people who can pass for each other, but one of them has a head 50% larger than the other? Is that your argument? Um... sure, that makes sense. Nobody will ever notice that. Or the heads are the same size, and yet another H&L canard ends up in the circular file. “Never mind the quality, feel the width.”
  3. So, still no answers. Just more of the same irrelevant rubbish. You don't want to stay on the topic of Stripling, because you cannot answer the questions asked. Which is why you rush along to other anomalies, without explaining the ones that surround Stripling. No amount of pretending that you have already answered outstanding questions will fool the people who read this. For a crack squad anxious to take on all comers, you sure all avoid the questions posed. Why? DJ's massive data dump is not designed to answer any of the questions already posed, but left embarrassingly unanswered. It is to flood the board with irrelevance, dressed up as answers. Then Jim - who invites discussions of the topic of Stripling and then runs away from the questions he's solicited - can drop some cheap shot about how NOBODY can answer all THIS. Nobody asked about all that. The topic was Stripling, and Jim has made it repeatedly clear over a dozen pages that he'd like to change the topic. Other H&L heavyweights then contributed by trying to get members here banned (because that's how men of higher learning and sharp debate skills comport themselves, right?), or deferred questions to the "expert" Jim Hargrove, who we now know from DJ is just the website guy, so he can't be expected to know everything. And of course Sandy admitted - to his credit - that he wouldn't have relied upon many of the self-same "witnesses" that are central to the Stripling story. DJ has distinguished the difference between the composition of the brick, and the wall. Thanks for that. If the wall is not part of Stripling school, it is irrelevant. Why can you guys never stay on topic? Why is it that no matter what the question, or how simple and direct, the response always requires the introduction of irrelevance, preferably by the Tom Scully ton? When you learn to answer direct questions, such as I've posed - as have at least three others - I'll be here. Until you're prepared to meet that obligation, this thread has been and will remain a disaster for H&L. Your avoidance of questions you cannot answer makes you look small. And H&L along with it. Well played, chaps!
  4. So, still no answers. Just more of the same irrelevant rubbish. You don't want to stay on the topic of Stripling, because you cannot answer the questions asked. Which is why you rush along to other anomalies, without explaining the ones that surround Stripling. No amount of pretending that you have already answered outstanding questions will fool the people who read this. For a crack squad anxious to take on all comers, you sure all avoid the questions posed. Why?
  5. Yes he did. It wasn’t true. But he said it. Yes it did. And yes he did. But you must now explain why Robert wouldn’t know the correct date of LHO attendance. You have no record to check against, so....., you say this because it must be the case to suit the H&L hypothesis. Oddly, Robert seemed to have no problem ascertaining the pertinent dates in his WC testimony. Additionally, one notes that you jumped from the first to the third newspaper articles. Something wrong with the second one? Maybe I’ll get back to that. “Teachers and classmates remember him as attending Stripling, though there is no official record.” Now this article contains a significant nugget of evidence. You see, for some reason, Jim Hargrove only cited one of the times the article mentions Stripling. But the author, Bud Kennedy related the following in the same article: In 1966, when I was 11, my wallet was stolen at what is now Stripling Middle School in the Arlington Heights neighborhood. A woman who lived nearby called our home saying it had been tossed in her yard. I bicycled to her home on Byers Avenue and thanked her. “Your name is Kennedy?” she asked, peering sternly through the screen door, and I nodded. She did not smile as she said, “Well — I’m Mrs. Oswald.” We would not have known, due to Jim H.’s decision for excision, the author either attended school at Stripling or was at least robbed there, when he’d be the right age to attend. At no time does he report that it was “common knowledge” Oswald attended there. At no time does he report the names of anyone who knew Oswald at Stripling, which would have been relatively easy for him to determine. He makes the un-sourced claim “teachers and classmates remember him as attending Stripling, but there is no official record.” Either way, his claim is half true: “there is no official record.” Since Marguerite never mentioned Lee attending Stripling, this oft-repeated canard has no relevance to the issue at hand. Which makes it supremely odd that nobody corrected him, or told him to keep his yap shut because the knowledge of Stripling could tip off somebody that something fantastical was afoot. But despite this being a top-secret, hush-hush need-to-know compartmentalized operation, Robert kept mentioning Stripling, and nobody drew his attention to how this jeopardized an off-the-shelf “eyes only” operation. Pick a lane. You can’t have them both. Well, they were only a quarter century old when the H&L squad should have been looking for them. But better late than never. And then there is your penchant for only quoting from 2017 what suits your purpose. Tsk tsk. Or I could simply quote - as I did above - something you wished to keep out of this thread. And since you volunteered this information, you presumably pumped Kennedy for any additional information he may have to help buttress the H&L hypothesis. I mean, why not? You already contact with him. Did he give you any additional names or leads? Or did you not ask? Again with the bait and switch. You planted a flag here, and have continued to defend it. What you haven’t done is answer a single question put to you by at least four people - the future ex-members of Norwood’s dreams - nor even made an attempt. You demand we demonstrate good faith, when you yourself have offered none. Try answering a damn question.
  6. So a kid named Pitts who doesn’t attend Stripling remembers a “nondescript” kid living across the street from Stripling? Does this kid know Oswald by name? Because they sure weren’t school-mates, according to you. How, exactly, does one determine the name of a “nondescript” kid if one doesn’t attend the same school? Did Pitts identify with certainty Oswald by name? If not, why not? Seems what he witnessed was a kid, whose identity is unknown. So this legless piece of “evidence” is then used to prop up an equally shaky id. Oh for god’s sake, when will you people cease with this false equivalency between pieces of evidence that should be there, but aren’t, and documents that never existed. If an FBI doc mentions in its body of text a reference to another document, that is evidence the second document exists, even if unavailable , for whatever reasons. You've provided NO documentation that indicates LHO attended Stripling. No photos, no yearbooks, no report cards, no reliable witnesses, nothing. Just a 30+year memory from Kudlaty for which JA then sought confirmation, some of it incredibly weak, at least to the point that Sandy warns against its use. You insist that school documents were seized and destroyed (or well hidden) to protect The Oswald project. But if LHO never attended there, what are the school records that went or are missing? But the big bad Bureau had them all deep-sixed to preserve the Oswald Project, while nevertheless letting Robert Oswald run his mouth - at least twice - about something the Oswald Project sponsors should have been desperate to keep hidden. Why would they let him do that, if the Stripling episode must have needed hiding? The problem is you don’t have six eyewitnesses to LHO attending Stripling. You have people like Bobby Pitts who couldn’t have known where Oswald went to school, because he didn’t know who Oswald was. He was just some “nondescript” kid allegedly living in the area whom you’ve chosen to identify as Oswald as it suits your purpose. Norwood assures us that “If a young boy is residing in that close proximity to the school, it is a fair assumption that he is enrolled at that institution..” If Norwood is compelled to rely upon this “assumption,” it is specifically because witness Pitts could not demonstrate where LHO went to school, only where he lived, assuming it was Oswald, which is by no means certain.. So, we’ve left the province of evidence to head for the land of “assumption.” If that’s a fair assumption, let me ask where Bobby Pitts lived relative to Stripling, and if he was a local resident, why did he not attend Stripling? If he didn’t, what makes us think that LHO did, or even should have done? Mere proximity to the school? Wasn’t the case for Pitts, so why is it “assumed” to be true of Oswald? One notices that you’re not actually prepared to debate or defend your witnesses, you simply regurgitate the number of them as though they all testify uniformly (which they don't) so they are to be taken at face value. Deserves an “incomplete.”
  7. So, Bobby Pitts is a non-starter, because JA didn’t bother recording an interview with him. That’s a pretty high standard for evaluation of evidence. You are to be applauded for it. Particularly if such a high standard is uniformly applied. May I ask how many other persons were interviewed, but not recorded? Just for the sake of knowing how universally that high standard was maintained. And establishing who else among the H&L witnesses ought likewise be jettisoned for not being on tape. So, while you admit it is unwise to use witness evidence you haven’t recorded, Norwood nevertheless does that very thing. And you’re fine with that. It’s “not unreasonable.” If it’s “not unreasonable” why do you not do the same thing? Your high standard seems endlessly malleable, depending on which side one is on. Why is it that you all get to decide which bits of evidence you’ll use, and which you’ll eschew? Jim doesn’t think Bobby Pitts should be used, because the evidence isn’t on tape. But Norwood does use it anyway. But that’s “not unreasonable.” Sandy thinks it unwise to use any of the 6 witnesses, but allows that some ring more true than others. If your own squad cannot agree as to what should and shouldn’t be admissible, what is or is not persuasive or probative, what is or isn’t “unreasonable,” can you not see that in each such instance, people are left wondering why you are so scattered in your defense of H&L. Hell, it seems all of you are prepared to demur over one H&L aspect or another. How can Sandy admit the evidence is not probative, while you insist it is. Hell of a way to run a railroad. Do you guys ever consult with each other? As for the repetition ad nauseam of “five FWST articles,” as already pointed out to you several times, if the FWST author/s didn’t contact Stripling to verify LHO’s attendance, then you don’t have five articles. All you have is Robert making an inadvertent mistake in the first article, that was then repeated in four additional pieces. And you repeating it endlessly as though it were established fact. Which it’s not, because that piece of necessary homework was not done. By Armstrong, or by you, or by the crack squad of H&L defenders. Jim may insist that his version is correct - five articles written at five different times - but the content in those five articles, written at different times, includes a mistake that was repeated throughout. Was Robert asked afresh by the FWST five times? You don’t know, because you haven’t sought to confirm if that is correct. You are content to rely upon that lack of knowledge, as though it were probative. And I suggest to all members that Jim Hargrove is not ignorant of media processes and protocols, and surely knows that this is the way newspapers work, because he is a man of letters himself. He knows that the first thing a reporter does is look for back history details in the newspaper archives... and by including pertinent portions repeat what seems to be of topical interest for the most current story. Any national story in a local newspaper, about a local resident, is bound to add local colour regarding siblings, spouses, church membership, ties to the local community, past criminal background (where it exists), etc. I take it that after asking about this a half dozen times now - to the response of complete silence - there was no attempt made to contact the FWST reporters to determine what was culled from their archives for each new story and what was a fresh Robert Oswald quote. A rather important loose end, left loose.
  8. Those who make a claim are responsible for proving it via corroborative evidence or witnesses. Those who question the claims are not. For a group of smart men, you seem to know little about how this process works. You present evidence, we get to cross-examine. If that strikes you as unfair, find a new hobby. So, we get three posts of irrelevance and - shock, horror! - NO answers to the questions asked. Again. And again. Noted. And Norwood is again threatening to have me removed for asking questions he cannot begin to answer. Noted. Which, to repeat myself, is quite a weird state of affairs. This is an exemplary chance to offer up all sorts replies that answer the questions, making the picture clearer for all to see. Instead, we get this self-revealing fluff, which likewise makes the current picture clearer for all to see. And it’s not helpful to H&L. This circular reasoning is not unlike what some people contend about the Bible: It’s the infallible word of God. How do we know? Because it says so in the Bible. I don’t know if you’ll succeed in getting me booted from here, though I doubt it. What I do think will ultimately happen is that John Armstrong will ask you all to cease publicizing his work, because you’re doing a really crap job of defending it. All of you. Were it my book being shredded, with only limp repetition such as this in my book’s defense, I’d rethink the wisdom of retaining your representation. How is it that you can assert as fact what you cannot demonstrate to be true? And why do you then complain of the horrible unfairness you suffer here for being asked to offer your proof. Oh, of course. Because you have none. Noted. For 3 quite intelligent men, your tag-team record in this thread is woeful. But richly deserved.
  9. I’m asking upon what basis Galindo - or any single person - gets to claim something is “common knowledge” without any apparent effort to determine how common it was. Should have been a no-brainer. How hard is it to ask Galindo “Do you know anyone else that shares your view?” Or maybe the question was asked, but for whatever reason it was decided Galindo alone should suffice. Or did Galindo say “Yes, I heard it from Kudlaty”? I’m asking if in writing any of the five FWST articles, the author/s bothered to check with Stripling that LHO attended. If not, you don’t have five articles; you have one article whose chief mistake is repeated an additional four times. This is such basic stuff, it must be humiliating to be incapable of a response. I’m asking if any attempt was made to contact Robert Oswald while he was still alive, to verify if this was his perfectly natural mistake, or determine his absolute certainty. But apparently we’re supposed to take this as read because Robert made the same mistake more than once, at least twice. Well, then it must be true! The fall-back of posting the very thing that is at issue - without even acknowledging legitimate questions that any author should be able to answer - is also self-negating. Open minded people read this all the time. You, like Norwood, and suddenly-instant “non-expert” Sandy, would like some help from others, but it’s not forthcoming. Because they’re afraid of questions they may be asked? Or because they see you, James and Sandy - self-proclaimed publicists - scuttle for cover rather than respond to questions for which you clearly have no answer. And no interest in providing one. It’s easier to post seven pages of the very thing whose validity is in question than to answer one. Noted.
  10. That’s what many people in this thread have assumed. Chance would be a fine thing. But the answers to our questions are not forthcoming. Apparently seeking answers to our questions is somehow out of bounds. Because if we don’t believe what we were told last time, we’ll hear it again on every page of this thread. Because that’ll convince everyone. And if we don’t ask in a just-so fashion, somebody will tell teacher on us. Farcical. Which is really a remarkable state of affairs. This is a golden opportunity to show the depth of intellectual argument, the painstaking effort expended to ensure there are no paths untaken, no alternatives left but what the obvious H&L proof requires. Crickets. Yet even the feeblest, easiest questions are parried aside as if never posed. “Did anyone from the FWST ever verify with staff at Stripling that LHO attended school there?” There are really only 3 possible answers: a) yes; b) no; or c) I don’t know. But try as I might, I cannot coax this information from Jim, James, Sandy.... If the answer is “yes,” let’s see the proof. If the answer is “no,” let’s see an admission. Because without that, we’re really back to square one with Robert naturally assuming LHO had followed him into Stripling. And his mistaken quote being recycled uncritically, first by the media, and now by the H&L squad. Repetition doesn’t make a falsehood true. And if the answer is “I don’t know,” it is wholly opposite to the certitude demonstrated elsewhere in this thread.
  11. Sandy: I’d like to know if Galindo was at Stripling in the 1950's. I’d like to know if Galindo knew Oswald personally? If not, I’d like to know when Galindo arrived at Stripling, and from whence arose this “common knowledge?” Kudlaty? Or others too? Because this is precisely the blank space into which your side should be throwing lots of confirmations. Knowing John Armstrong to be thorough, I would have expected him to ask Galindo for names of others who shared this “common knowledge.” Surely, if it was “common,” there should have been no difficulty in finding others who shared the knowledge. Again, knowing John Armstrong to be thorough, I would have expected him to at least locate one corroborating source, as is the practice of good journalists, and authors. Sandy, you have yourself written in this thread that the critics here only want to pick on the “weakest” aspects, such as Stripling. I thought that was very even-handed of you. Unfortunately, by admitting that the Stripling episode is among the “weakest” of Armstrong’s arguments, are you not under-cutting your entire group argument? Perhaps you could confer with Jim and James, swap some hints. Also unfortunate is the use of the superlative “weakest,” as it requires that there elsewhere be found that which is simply “weak” or “weaker.” You can’t have “weakest” without them. Again, very even-handed of you. My compliments.
  12. And thus do we see the spotlight dramatically shift from Stripling to something else. Mark Stevens and Jeremy B. have raised pertinent points thus far un-engaged by the H&L team. I’ve raised a few myself. But Stripling is now toast, in order to cut and run elsewhere. Noted.
  13. A few points: This is precisely the flaccid dodge-em we’ve come to expect. Rather than you deciding for us whether this is one of the weakest of Armstrong’s many arguments (some of them quite good), are we not entitled to judge the merits of his contention ourselves? We are asked to accept the provenance of Robert Oswald’s mistaken assumption that Lee had attended Stripling. It was in the paper. Yes it was, but that doesn’t mean it is true. I’ve pointed out several times now - to the deafening response of crickets - that nothing in the FWST reportage indicates the paper ever contacted the school to verify Robert’s mistake. I will gladly accept ANY evidence of ANY kind that the FWST contacted ANYONE at Stripling to verify the claims made by Robert. It seems a reasonable ask. What do we get? Nothing. Instead, we are now to be herded onto higher ground, where the Armstrong hypothesis is purportedly less easily dissected. I suspect we’ll get there in good time. But until then, this thread has exposed the paucity of actual evidence on offer regarding an essential aspect of the H&L hypothesis. The constant refrains about Kudlaty’s many virtues are irrelevant to me. Meals On Wheels? Fantastic! I like the man already. Really. Wasted on me, though. I’ve never implied that Kudlaty deliberately did anything wrong. I’ve never accused him of anything other than mis-recalling a detail. A small detail, but one that determined whether he got to discuss his brief brush with Lee Oswald’s files, or the somewhat diminished tale of Robert Oswald’s files. What the mind forgets, it also embellishes. In any case, I think it’s been demonstrated to all but the most obdurate that the quality of evidence being proffered re: Stripling is significantly less persuasive than has been admitted. But the H&L team don’t need to admit that; it’s time to move to higher ground. Again. And again. And again. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. To be studiously fair to John Armstrong, I’ve spent years - literally - in research libraries studying the 26 volumes, the HSCA and the Church Committee volumes, newspaper archives, phone books for various US and foreign cities, hundreds of mostly obscure books, and much, much more, in hard copy or microfilm or microfiche. I know the magnitude of the work he undertook, perhaps better than most. I want it understood that I have nothing but respect for the work ethic he displayed, and the tenacity with which he pursued an overwhelming amount of data. Props. The fact that I disagree with his conclusion ought not diminish his contribution of documents we’d have never seen without him, or my acknowledgment of it. That said, I hope it puts my posts in the proper context. Nothing personal. Whatsoever. Just the facts, ma’am.
  14. I notice in the Bomb piece, somebody from the FWST seems to have actually spoken to Kudlaty. Good. When you can show that the FWST spoke with somebody @ Stripling in a position of authority to corroborate Robert Oswald's contention regarding LHO in Stripling, you'll have something of merit. Until then, you've got an endlessly repeated error that even the newspaper who ran it didn't bother to check out. GI-GO. And, can I say that if your intent was to prove the FWST covered the school "regularly," a single story is insufficient? Who wouldn't expect a newspaper to cover a scary bomb hoax?
  • Create New...