Mark Stevens

I believe it is at the least, an unstated rule that he does in fact have to rebut. Wow, Mark. You and I live in different universes. If an opponent doesn't rebut, it generally means one of the following: Your argument is right and he can't defend his position against it. Your argument is wrong, and so bad that he's counting on readers making the same assessment. Your argument is so trivial that it's not worth debating. Or some other, mundane reason. Like he missed your argument. You just never cease to amaze me. You intentionally left out the first half of my sentence to make it appear as though I said something ridiculous. To be honest, if I saw only that section you quoted I would also say me and the other person live in a different universe. Of course there is no unstated rule that person has to respond to another. What I actually said was: The context of my comment is incredibly important and defines it as pertaining to a discussion forum inherently geared towards education. It wasn't a blanket statement of some universal unstated rule and you absolutely know this.

Considering this is a discussion forum, and one inherently based on education, I believe you are wrong. It is not as though I have tracked Jim down in the street, grabbed and shaken him, and demanded he present his evidence. He came to a discussion forum inherently geared towards education, made claims and posted links and then refused to discuss and educate people regarding those claims and links. I believe it is at the least, an unstated rule that he does in fact have to rebut. If not, then what is the actual point? I did make a good point regarding common knowledge, and to be honest one of the three other people actually participating in this foolishness has pointed out the validity of my question. (I misspoke, he didn't actually concur with me, rather said the same thing) Common knowledge equals many people. 6 out of 300 doesn't equal many. I don't need anyone to pat me on the back and say "boy you really zinged em there buddy." My opinion of common knowledge is pretty much based on the definition of common knowledge, not how many people agree with my opinion. Again, you come in and point out how my(?) ideas are "lame" but you don't actually explain how. At the least, I'm providing what I believe to be reasonable explanations and observations of why the H&L ideas are incorrect. Can you not do the same to support your statements and position, or is that something you don't have to do, since there's no rule and all?

I guess you missed it, or thought I was copying Cliff's thoughts. I did "articulate" my own counter argument and asked direct questions related to that argument. Do you also have Kirk on ignore? Honestly, i don't really care about your personal relationships/conflicts or why anyone might have you on ignore. I'm guessing you think though that I'm low hanging fruit, for easy pickin', and is why you singled out my reply, when we are all making the same point, albeit with different questions raised. I'm not sure why the snarkiness either. You should understand that although I disagree with almost everything about Trump, this doesn't mean I have any inherent personal animosity to you as a Trump supporter.

I believe my sentiment echoes Cliffs. As I understand Trump and his associates, he is very much a member of this club. Did they turn on him for some reason, or was Trump just playing the game and making him think he was one of them so he could bring it all down? Did he participate in the sexual assault (I'll at least say allegedly) of minors just to expose others doing it?

Uhm, actually you did the exact opposite. When I pointed out that "normal people" would expect qualification to the statement "common knowledge," you stated: You did not explain what a "normal person" would understand that to be. You instead hem and hawed and pretended as though I asked a question I didn't, so you could attack the question instead of responding. You see what I did there? You see how I used your actual words to refute a baseless statement you just made? How I post what you actually said and allow readers to know what you actually said. I don't make up some exaggerated version of what you said, I just post what you said. Notice how instead you do this? All of those accusations are from the same reply. Not once do you use any facts or actual words of the accused to support your statement. You just baselessly slander their name without any remorse (or concern).

The point I've been trying to make is that in the time it took you to make this post you could read the statements and know for yourself. I liken this statement to a Libertarian saying they don't know how many amendments are in the Bill of Rights. As a H&L supporter I believe this is a basic fact you should know and understand. My basic point was that which I made above. Much of what we are discussing is core evidence of the H&L story. If you aren't familiar with the details of the evidence then I don't really understand what has convinced you. Sandy, do you mean to tell me that a guy saying it is common knowledge Oswald went to the school is a better witness than 1 or more people who can attest to being part of a group of friends with Oswald? Those witnesses aren't even worth putting any effort to, because we have a guy who never actually saw him, just maybe heard rumors? I feel those witnesses bear a significant importance and I believe almost any lawyer would agree. There are some on this forum, we can ask them. I agree though with the uncheckable nature, especially at this point, of much of the...I don't know...evidence...I guess... Regarding McClinton, I was largely being facetious, it would take more to convince me of the Hungarian Oswald. I do though subscribe to basically, a "2nd Oswald" theory, it though follows more "traditional" impersonation scenario(s). Delbert McClinton is named as a person in the group of Oswald's friends. I believe his name was also in an address book of Ruby's. From what I recall, it was related to his music. He does, or at some point has played, in a band with Willie Nelson. One could think otherwise because there are other, at the least equally valid explanations. I believe you would have to concede the other explanation is at least equally likely. Then, that explanation is weighed against other evidence (for and against it) as is the original(?) explanation and see what you come to. The facts are this, everything Kudlaty stated mirrors the actual truth of Robert Lee Oswald's attendance at Stripling and is at the least as likely as the H&L story to be true. If you don't believe this to be true, could you please explain how so?

Robert, I believe you have introduced a very valid and quite tangibly correct assessment. A few interesting and valid points should be made. Robert's name was Robert Lee Oswald. Robert Lee Oswald attended W.C. Stripling Junior High School for only one year, his 9th grade year. While not immediately true, it is very much possible that almost everything Kudlaty said is entirely correct. Maybe the FBI showed up at W.C. Stripling for very much the same reason Jim Hargrove will not debate something other than the damn newspaper articles, and that is the fact that the newspaper did state Oswald attended Stripling (in articles related to his defection which would possibly put the articles on the FBI's "radar"). The FBI sent agents there to get whatever records the school had pertaining to Oswald. Kudlaty, doing the only responsible thing he knew to do was turn over the only records pertaining to an Oswald that he had, which was the records for Robert LEE OSWALD. He then glanced at the records as he stated he did, and only saw records for Robert's 9th grade year at Stripling. While the scenario above is not the only, absolute truth, it is just as likely, if not more likely so to be true as the H&L accepted "facts." I await anyone's articulated conclusion.

I wholehearted agree. The issue I'm taken "offense" with is the fact that even though "None of the H&L evidence proves that there were two Oswalds," H&L supporters, yourself included continue to make statements such as: Norwood: "a total of six eyewitnesses (Frank Kudlaty, Fran Schubert, Richard Galindo, Mark Summers, Bobby Pitts, and Douglas Gann) clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School" (these six people are a mix of things, but not 6 eyewitnesses who clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling. This fact is absolutely clear and hardly able to be challenged, but please by all means do) Hargrove: "Thank you for that clear summary of the evidence that one LHO attended Stripling School in Fort Worth in the fall semester of 1954 while the other was still at Beauregard School in New Orleans. Your point about the FBI contacting Stripling principal Weldon Lucas less than 24 hours after the assassination is a clear indication that someone in the Bureau, probably Hoover himself, understood the danger of the Stripling evidence and in all likelihood planned from the beginning to make it all disappear. Small wonder the agents didn't offer Mr. Kudlaty a receipt!" (This is simply a parroting of Norwood's quote above, again these statements are in no way evidence or proof that Oswald attended Stripling. We can more closely examine what these "witnesses" actually stated and what they actually saw, but the H&L group constantly refuses to discuss these witness statements and whether they qualify to be used in the manner H&L supporters use them.) Larsen: "We have multiple corroborating witnesses. Francetta and other corroborating witnesses say you're wrong." (Yet, you nor none of the other H&L supporters will actually discuss who these witness are, or what their actual statements were, or begin to answer questions regarding their statements and the associated questions their statements awaken.) The fact that one has to "consider the totality of the evidence and consider whether it amounts to just a bunch of mistakes, lies, and coincidences, or whether it likely proves the case" is literally the exact words I, Tracy Parnell, and surely others have tried to get the H&L to understand. When the totality of evidence for H&L, especially in regards to Stripling, amounts to 6 "eyewitness" and the totality of evidence that he did not attend, is the literal hundreds of students and faculty who do not remember him, the totality of the evidence amounts to mistaken identifications at best, and outright fraudulent statements at worst. I do not accuse anyone of making outright fraudulent statements, and to the best of my knowledge have not yet accused anyone of mistaken identifications. You know why I haven't? Because H&L supporters will not even discuss the statements with me. They only continue to habitually mention the fact that they exist as some kind of proof the statements themselves are true. Please.Discuss.The.Witness.Statements. The absolute irony of everything you said is astounding. I've literally been trying for pages, days even to get you, Norwood, Hargrove, or any other H&L supporter to talk about basically the entire H&L tale, but we have to start somewhere. We can't debate all aspects of the tale in one post. Much like an elephant, we have to take it one bite at a time. While I try to chew on and digest the "eyewitness" bite, you and other supporters savagely rip the morsel from my mouth and instead stuff in "newpaper and records" bites. Can we finish one course before we move on to the next. I will literally discuss every single page of H&L with you, or anyone, but we have to do it logically and in a genuine manner meant to ascertain what the evidence actually is and what the evidence actually states. We can't deflect from a topic because the H&L group does not want to discuss it, "thinks it's a waste of time," or simply cannot answer the questions. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "I'm not entirely sure," or "I haven't looked at it that way," or "I made a mistake," or "You're right, that doesn't mean what I thought it did." In fact, the ability to do so defines a persons character, it does not detract from it. The fact that numerous errors have been made and not once has anyone said, my bad I messed up and was wrong, is inherently telling. Just a few pages ago you pointed out numerous errors I made in a post. I replied by admitting yes I did in fact make errors largely due to not paying attention. While I did intend to edit the mistakes, I left them for posterity. Hargrove on the other hand, has also made numerous mistakes. He also made the audacious point of saying that when errors are made, people correct them. He then did not correct his errors or even acknowledge them. I'd say that's ironic, but at this point I have to seriously question Hargroves motives and his habitual desire to refuse to discuss other evidence besides newspaper articles and school records (which I've stated we could discuss if we could just move on from the witness statement topic of discussion). Hargrove though refuses to discuss the statements. I await another post regurgitating the same articles and records, while completely ignoring and/or misrepresenting the "eyewitness" statements. Or we could easily discuss this "weak evidence" (I'm not sure exactly what evidence that refers to) if this includes the witness statements, and then move on to the other topic(s). We could just discuss the statements, regardless of whether you believe them to be strong or weak, close that discussion, and move on to whatever strong evidence you would like to discuss. Articulated conclusions, everywhere.

I've explained this multiple times, and you clearly know this because you mentioned my comments just after this statement. If you are so concerned about where that number came from, how about you read back the multiple pages of avoidance you've proffered and actually answer the question where this number came from. I've explained this numerous times, it's not my fault you are unwilling or unable to answer the question. You won't though. You'll reply with another article, and how this proves LHO attended Stripling. When it doesn't. It just proves an article exists saying LHO attended Stripling, it doesn't prove he actually attended. When we inquire about the veracity of the statements in the articles, or sourcing of the actual statements, we're told the articles exist, and that's enough proof. Who needs actions, when you've got words? Is this the standard of discussion allowed here? As long as you don't call someone bad names you can lie, you can twist words, you can accuse people of stating things they clearly didn't say, all this is acceptable forms of discussion, only name calling is taboo? A person can present a topic, then be allowed to not discuss the topic on the very thread they introduced, this is reasonable discussion? The only way this debate ends without you actually answering the questions put forth is when one of us are banned, this thread is locked, or one of us die. I will come here every day and "demand" you answer the questions you continue to avoid. Everyone who follows will see your constant deflection and inability to answer the most basic questions regarding ideas you brought forth. But hey, them articles...right...? ETA: Also, for the people in the back who may not understand...You cannot use the fact that they exist as evidence the claims made in them are true. When a person attempts to discuss the claims of the article, not the fact the articles exist, you cannot again use the fact the articles exist as evidence the claims made in them are true.

I see you continue to avoid my questions about topics which can be proven or otherwise established and instead continue to repeat an item which can never be verified, only speculated upon. I ask yet again, albeit in a different manner, if one person claims he saw LHO but at least 294 have absolutely no recollection of him, doesn't the preponderance of evidence weigh in favor of the overwhelming majority of people who never saw him? Why do you continue to use this one statement and not at least attempt to determine who his "group of friends" were (since they can provide more information than Kudlaty), why has no attempt been made to establish what Delbert McClinton knew (since he is named as being in this group of friends)? Would their statements not carry as much weight, if not more so than Kudlaty's? Shoddy investigating, at best. Willful denial at worst.

Jim... Again, the fact these articles exist are not evidence the statements within them are true. Do you agree many papers state LHO as the sole assassin of JFK? Do you agree that the fact that is in the paper does not make the statement true? Do you agree this logic is true for all statements made in a newspaper? Stop being afraid. Discuss the witness statements.

I'm not intending to imply there was no water at all or no ability to fight any fire. Just that there were localized areas and instances with a water supply issue. For whatever reason, building 7 was definitely impacted by a disruption at some point. As far as leaning, I personally never heard any accounts of building 7 leaning, but I have for 1. I have never been able to see a noticeable lean in building 1 though.

I'm sorry, but I have to say you are mistaken. I believe much of his point regarding water supply can be summed up by his statements here: I'm really not sure how this disproves (I'm not sure of the number and hazard to take a guess) the amount of eyewitnesses statements from firefighters who connected a hose to a hydrant and no water came out. I'm not sure how it disproves a firefighter turning on a standpipe inside of building 7 and no water coming out. Regardless of what this guy in the video says, multiple people on site on 9/11 have personal experience with the fact that there were areas and instances of no water availability and the overall difficulty fighting the fires that day. Not only due to the lack of consistent water availability, but also due to reports of other planes, bombs, the amount of debris in the area, visibility conditions, not to mention the need to search for survivors. All of this impacted ways firefighters might react to a lack of available water under normal conditions. Secondary sources which might otherwise be available were also buried under debris, or impacted in some manner. Have you read the oral histories of the 500+ included first responders put out shortly after 9/11? These paint a vivid and fascinating picture of 9/11 which helps fills gaps and give insight into some areas and create questions in regards to others. I recommend you, and everyone, read them if you have not. ETA: I do also have probably as many reports of fires being actively fought (and no report of water supply problems) as I do of water supply problems.

Asking for substance for your substantial evidence is not genuine question? Asking what the unnamed, but "substantial evidence" is, is not a genuine question? Asking what amount of people (of a specific population) need to know something before it is considered "common" is not genuine? If you presented this ludicrous argument in a court of law you would be all but laughed at (because some people take this seriously). You would have to establish what evidentiary fact your ultimate fact is based on. If the ultimate fact was that it was "common knowledge" you would have to show what evidentiary fact this statement is based on. What you would ultimately be left stating is that of an estimated population of 300 people, there are literally 3 people who can give even the flimsiest of connection to Oswald attending Stripling for the school year 1953-54, or even 1954-55. Hell even with the questionable "eyewitness" from 1952, and the ones who only place him at a house near the school you are only left with 6 people out of population of 300 who over the course of at least 6 months attended school with LHO of the 300 people, 294 do not remember him at all and 6 do. Never mind the fact that Schubert claims Lee Harvey Oswald had a group of friends. Is asking why we haven't spoken to or even found these people not a genuine question? Delbert McClinton is mentioned by name as having gone into this house with your LHO. Is asking why no one has asked him what he remembers about that house and who lived there not a genuine question. When people state: Is asking what names of teachers and classmates remember, and what years do they remember him from not a genuine question? I asked why Pitts, who only saw "Oswald" sitting on a porch and never stated he saw Oswald attending Stripling is used as a "eyewitness to Oswald's presence at Stripling." This is also, not genuine? At this point, any one following along can see the actual pattern.

You just do not seem to understand. For a person, any person to make the claim that anything is "common knowledge" it has to be backed by some kind of actual number(s). I in no manner "demanded" you discuss what common knowledge should mean to a linguist, a statistician, or a philosopher. What I did ask you to do was to state, what actual number of people have first hand knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald, someone resembling him, or someone relating to be him which attended Stripling Junior High School in Fort Worth Texas for the school year 1953-54. To me it seems rather clear what the question is and what I am "demanding" you discuss. Would you also then state, what actual number (an estimate is also fine) faculty and students included, attended or worked at Stripling Junior High School in Fort Worth Texas for the school year 1953-1954 (again, reasonable estimates based on what is known about attendance and employment in other, similar years is fine). If you were to introduce this argument in court a judge would require you to define what "common knowledge" entailed. You would have to explain if it were 9/10 people, or 1/10. The jury could then decide if in fact the knowledge were "common." The same basic fact behooves you as a claimant. You have to define, to us the jury, what the "common knowledge" entails and allow us, the jury, to decide if in fact this constitutes "common" knowledge. You are not allowed to make the claim without providing evidence to support it. The fact that he said it, does not prove or support the fact that it is actually true. You cannot continue to use the fact that Galindo made a claim as evidence the claim Galindo made was true. The same "simple fact" as you like to state is true for the newspaper articles. You cannot use the fact that they exist as evidence the claims made in them are true. When a person attempts to discuss the claims of the article, not the fact the articles exist, you cannot use the fact the articles exist as evidence the claims made in them are true. However many pages ago, I attempted to explain my belief (and a logical one I believe) was to Robert Oswald's statement regarding Stripling to the Warren Commission: A few pages later Robert states: What I take from this is a huge misunderstanding of what Robert said and also taking those comments out of context. My take is this: In 1951-1952 LHO was 12 and attended 6th grade at Ridgelea. (turned 12 in Oct. '51) In 1952 LHO would have turned 13 and would have entered into the 7th grade at Stripling for the 1952-53 school year had the family continued to reside in Ft. Worth. So while Robert does state "In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then." he is referencing a hypothetical. Oswald did not turn 13 until October of 1952, by that point they were already in NYC. So while LHO was "13 in 1952," it was only for 2.5 months. My fairly basic understanding of the school records seems to show LHO entering into the 7th grade in 1952, which would have put him at Stripling had they continued to reside in Ft. Worth. Since they moved, he enrolled in a different school, at or before the beginning of the school year. If you look at Robert's comments in context, his "mistake" becomes clear as do all of comments and what they truly mean as well as the timeline. If you take Robert's statements in context he clearly states that after Ridgelea LHO entered into Stripling. He's not confused about years at all as Jim Hargrove would like you to believe. He know's he is referring to the school year he is talking about, and states this numerous times. To answer your question though, I wouldn't believe either statement Robert Oswald made regarding Stripling. He was not in position to have first hand knowledge, as his clear mistakes show. The ball keeps getting passed back to use by the H&L crowd because "it is a waste of time to try to respond to critics on this thread." You mean to tell me I haven't raised one genuine question? Seriously, not one? You continue to mention the "substantial evidence" but not the actual substance of the "evidence" or what even qualifies the "evidence" as actual evidence. We try to ascertain that, and you tell us it isn't even worthwhile. I've asked legitimate questions regarding the "witnesses" and what they saw and stated. Again, You cannot use the fact that they exist as evidence the claims made in them are true. When a person attempts to discuss the claims of the article, not the fact the articles exist, you cannot again use the fact the articles exist as evidence the claims made in them are true. I'm not sure if you know this, but I can find maybe one or two, quite possibly even four, articles I saw about it, but it was also in the newspaper that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of John F. Kennedy. I guess, this whole debate is no longer worthwhile. It was printed in the newspaper, it has to be explicitly true, no matter how many times it is repeated. Questioning the veracity of the statements isn't just not allowed, it's also ludicrous to do so. I mean, gee golly, it's right there in the paper! Four times no less!!!! Even better, it's four different papers. Not just one saying the same thing four times, four different papers! I guess I should delete my account now, burn all those JFK books this winter instead of wood. Save some heating costs. This worthless debate was solved by the newspapers what, 60 years ago. Silly me.

There is though. The report (claim?) below is regard the ability to get water inside of the building. I can get plenty more which state the same thing, there was no water and the fires were "allowed" to burn. Lieutenant Rudolf Weindler There are numerous reports of the water system sustaining major disruptions due to the collapse(s). While water could have been pumped in, this was all but unfeasible considering the general condition of the landscape at the time. You really need to familiarize yourself with the reports of the people who were on scene and responded to the disaster.

My thoughts on building 7 are that it was ultimately demolished, but I'm not entirely sure how. There was extensive damage and fires in building 7 by late afternoon an there was no ability to fight the fires due to water main disruptions. My belief is that it would have ultimately collapsed "naturally," but due to electrical infrastructure underneath building 7 which needed to be kept whole as much as possible the building was "pulled" to control the extent of the damage.

Sandy, I have attempted to discuss some anomalies, at least as they pertain to the witnesses, and no one will answer any of my questions. Would you care to reply to them, I may have directly asked you some of them.

There are many witnesses who describe the explosions and their sound as being as loud or louder than the initial explosive impacts. I'm not talking about "pows" and "bams" but "BOOMS" which shook the entire building and sometimes the entire complex. Reports of explosions: Fire Patrolman Paul Curran Firefighter James Murphy Firefighter Fernando Camacho Firefighter Craig Carlsen Firefighter Thomas Turilli Firefighter Stephen Viola Firefighter Richard Carletti Firefighter Kevin Gorman Firefighter John Wilson Firefighter John Malley Firefighter Christopher Fenyo Firefighter Kenneth Rogers Chief Frank Cruthers Chief Mark Steffens Lieutenant Brian Becker Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory This interview has a significant portion redacted. There are some other, interesting reports from the day as well: One interesting event for which it is hard to post the "details" of is something which happened on or around the George Washington Bridge at the same time. There are multiple redacted interviews which refer to this event and how interesting and peculiar the event appears to be. I have never been able to find out what this event was. Battalion Chief Dominick DeRubbio This interview has a small portion redacted. Interesting people on site: Firefighter William Reynolds Lieutenant Brian Becker EMT Michael D'Angelo Lieutenant Robert Larocco Deputy Commissioner Frank Gribbon Briam Smith Third plane: Firefighter John Malley Firefighter Sidney Parris Other: Firefighter Edward Kennedy Firefighter Richard Carletti Lieutenant Robert Larocco EMT Orlando Martinez Lieutenant Richard Smiouskas Firefighter Kirk Long Lieutenant Brian Becker Paramedic Gary Smiley Firefighter Richard Saulle Firefighter Michael Hazel

Sandy, I'm not referring to the letter you posted. I'm referring to an entirely different letter, which I quoted. In it, Armstrong clearly states Kudlaty and White are friends.

Hi Sandy, again pleased. Would you care to name these witnesses, please? Thanks.

Sigh. ... 🤦‍♂️ Again, what exactly constitutes "common knowledge?" If for instance, 300 students and faculty were at Stripling, daily, and Harvey & Lee proponents have offered, at best, 6 documented witnesses which can attest to Oswald's presence at Stripling; would 2% constitute a population which could be considered "common knowledge?" The closest I've come to accusing someone of lying is James Norwood. Please, provide any other posts where I have accused anyone of lying. My belief is that Robert Oswald is simply mistaken when he refers to Lee Harvey Oswald as attending Stripling in 1952. Robert Oswald has no other, on the record statements regarding Lee Harvey Oswald attending Stripling. The Warren Commission statements, which are consistently referred to by Harvey & Lee proponents do in no way pertain to 1954. I had to have asked it 10 times, and you still literally refuse to discuss them, because according to you they are not evidence, and irrelevant. Never mind the fact that it was you who posted the notes to begin with. I'm sorry to be the first to break this to you, but they are what John Armstrong thought was evidence, and he agreed when he used their statements in his book and based almost his whole case on these very same statements. It's good to know though, that you don't think Kudlaty's statements are evidence and won't use them. He's the first statement I quoted, and he's first quoted in Harvey & Lee on page 98. His irrelevant statements will not longer be used by you though. While I do believe Schubert/Tubbs statements are relevant, I do not believe them to be reliable. I had no idea you felt so strongly though and believed her statements were irrelevant. Her statements were the second statements I quoted, and they are first used in Harvey & Lee on page 101. I though was able to find some context for her statements, from the video interview with her and John Armstrong. In the video she makes a variety of surprising statements and I can understand why Armstrong thought it wise to exclude them from the book. No reason to have readers asking unwanted questions, like if he hung out daily with a group of friends, where are all of their statements? If she saw him in December-January, wouldn't this conflict with him living in New York City (and also being enrolled in two separate schools according to Armstrong) there? Questions like if HLO lived in the rear apartment, why was he coming and going from the front apartment? Never mind all that though, her statements are irrelevant according to you, I'm sure you won't use them anymore then. I have never thought Galindo was relevant, I'm pleased to know you agree. He was the third statement I quoted and is first quoted in Harvey & Lee on page 97. Since there was literally hundreds of students and faculty at Stripling, and so far 6 documented witnesses, the 2% ratio does not really meet the expected criteria of "common knowledge." Either way he's irrelevant, according to you. Surely you won't use his statements anymore. The same is true for Summers, the fourth statement I quoted. He is first quoted in Harvey & Lee on page 98 as well. Notice how Armstrong selectively leaves out the important information which qualifies it to be used in the theory that HLO attended Stripling in 1954, the fact that Summer's recalled Oswald in 1952. Never mind that pesky fact though, we can at least both agree his statements are irrelevant, since they do not pertain to 1954. No reason to use those anymore. All the more true for Pitts, the fifth statement quoted by me and first quoted by Armstrong on page 102. He is irrelevant because he has no knowledge of Oswald. His only knowledge is seeing "him" watch from the porch when Pitts would play football in his yard. Never mind the fact that Oswald did not reside in the apartment with this porch, his apartment was an entirely different one. Lastly, Gann, the last statement I quoted and first quoted by Armstrong on page 103. Like Schubert I felt it was relevant, but lacking important context. Additionally, by Armstrong's own quotes he "may have" had homeroom with Oswald. The statement may have hardly constitutes evidence. I really wish you were more familiar with the very subject matter you post here, repeatedly. It's of no real consequence though, because they are irrelevant to this discussion since you have not included them in collection evidence. Again, I do not believe the school records to be irrelevant. What I do believe is we cannot discuss every topic at once, and much like eating an elephant we have to take one bite at a time. We can gladly discuss the school records, and newspaper articles, and whatever you would like, literally in 1 post if you will just please address the witness statements. Please explain how my assessment of those statements is in error. We can gladly move on from this topic, and address other topics related to the Harvey & Lee story. I have no problems discussing those topics, please stop stating otherwise. Hi Sandy, nice of you to join us again. I'm glad you were able to point this out. I'm curious though how this meshes with other statements John Armstrong has made, this comment in a letter dated 11/13/94 for instance "Mr. Kudlaty's memory of that event is on the enclosed tape recording. He currently resides in Waco, Texas and, coincidentally, is a friend and former classmate of Jack White's at TCU." Armstrong seems pretty clear here that Kudlaty and White are friends. This is apparently after the interview was filmed, and he was still claiming they were friends.

My apologies, but all throughout this thread a variety of topics have been covered. Trump, BLM, police, covid, JFK, even just music videos being posted. Any particular reason you singled out my reply, and not literally the hundreds before it when none of those also related to JFK or the "Plague?"

I'm not sure if anyone has heard anything of this, but saw a friend comment about it on Facebook and thought it was interesting.

Again, diverting attention away from the topic at hand is all but the very definition of sleight of hand. You keep mentioning newspapers and school records when I am literally pleading with you to just reply to my comments regarding the eyewitnesses. It is very much a distraction when I ask you "please reply about the witness statements" and you in turn reply with "the school records..." We can address all of your points in due time. We can discuss school records, newspaper articles, whatever you would like to discuss. Please, for the love of everything, please stop avoiding the question and deflecting the topic. Quit creating unnecessary distractions by introducing topics not being discussed, and discuss the eyewitness statements. Please. Please. Discuss. The. Eyewitness. Statements. Please discuss Schubert/Tubbs and what qualifies her to say what she has regarding what she saw. You know, what evidentiary fact, how she knew the person was LHO, which establishes the ultimate fact that she saw LHO walk across the parking lot? When someone asks her "how did you know that was LHO"? Is her reply, "Oh when I saw the picture on TV I realized it looked like the same guy." Or, did she state "Oh, I talked to Lee everyday I knew it was him." Also, it is important to note the fact that she allegedly saw LHO enter the front apartment when the person (HLO) lived in the rear apartment according to Armstrong. If HLO, or anyone for that matter, lived in the rear apartment, they would not under normal and common circumstances enter into the other residence, or hang out on that porch without some pre-existing relationship. Please discuss Galindo and the context of how it was "common knowledge" is LHO attended Stripling. Explain what qualifies something to be "common". Then explain if 6 people meets that qualification. Please discuss Summers, and why if he thought he taught LHO in 1952, are his comments being used as evidence that LHO attended Stripling in 1954. Please discuss Pitts, and why if he only saw a boy who resembled LHO sitting on a porch are his comments being used as evidence that LHO attended Stripling. He has no knowledge of Oswald attending Stripling. Please discuss Gann, and what qualifies him to state what he has stated. What evidentiary facts establish the ultimate fact. Please do not reply with more comments about records, and newspaper articles. Please. Please. Discuss. The. Eyewitness. Statements.